A small official-data badge can change how a reader trusts an entire chart. Inspecting a title-dependent default in the actual chart component raised a question about when a convenient default starts making an unsupported judgment.
When decoration reads as source evidence
The source chooses a simulation label for certain title wording and otherwise supplies an official-data default. Titles are editorial sentences that may change for readability. If renaming a chart changes its apparent provenance without changing its data, two responsibilities have become coupled.
This observation does not establish that a particular source was false. It identifies an unsafe inference input. A polished chart or persuasive title is not source evidence. Units, scope and checked date should identify the material separately, while synthetic values remain useful for their explicitly educational purpose.
Require a declared classification
The new chart function requires official, synthetic or unverified explicitly, alongside a reference, checked date and unit. Invalid dates fail. A title sounding official still remains synthetic when that is the supplied classification; there is no promotion based on wording.
The function does not query an institution or authenticate its evidence. A caller-declared marker makes that responsibility visible. Possessing a reference string is different from confirming that it supports these values and this period. The reusable contract coordinates presentation without replacing source review.
Test the narrow inference boundary
A synthetic title sounding official is paired with the synthetic classification, and the test verifies that classification stays unchanged. Unknown kinds and impossible dates also fail. Theme wording may change, but editorial authority to rename a chart should not implicitly change evidence status.
Unlike a general source-editing article, this account isolates one badge default. It presents no actual statistics or current official release and uses a fixed synthetic title. It therefore introduces no new advertising-performance claim and relies on an inspectable implementation decision instead of borrowed authority.
Break the official label into reviewable questions
Explicit classification still needs a scope: does it cover the whole chart or one series? This small function binds one declaration to a chart and does not automatically resolve mixed-provenance series. Such a chart needs per-series evidence or separation rather than one convenient badge hiding the mixture.
The checked date is a caller-declared review date, not the underlying observation period. A period requires its own field. One date does not represent every temporal meaning. Similarly, an integrated axis must actually agree with the declared unit.
Colors and wording can be refined after preserving this contract. The first responsibility is preventing demonstration values from reading as observations. That ordering also helps designers, editors and developers share responsibility for the same chart.
Keep review responsibilities after integration
The shared package also contains separate functions for notice consistency, image-to-claim lineage and review state. Twelve tests passed in source and fresh extraction. The viewer reads actual local records; it does not verify external material or establish how users interpret a badge.
After integration, inspect whether unit, period, references and limits remain close to the classification. A demonstration should read as a demonstration and uncertainty should remain visible. My aim is to provide material for assessing trust rather than a decorative shortcut that merely creates confidence.
Refreshing a checked date cannot itself make material current. Someone must revisit the underlying record and review changed values before updating the declaration. This function deliberately cannot claim to have performed that work.