Files
chart-sins/docs/sources
Claude 761e048811 Work the five delivered sources into the pages
The source-request loop paid for itself immediately — two of the five
corrected something rather than confirming it.

The Economist piece settles V1, the riskiest live claim, but our note
had over-claimed: truncating the scale is its *first* example, not one
of "several." Note rewritten to quote her. The same article turned out
to contain a dual-axis chart she caught herself on, now cited.

Datawrapper's color-scale part 1 refuted the assumption behind a queued
sin outright: it makes no argument against rainbow scales and endorses
multi-hue sequential gradients. The rainbow entry is now marked as
having no verified source at all, rather than ample backing.

The dual-axis post independently draws the same line we drew last turn
— of four uses only the alternative-scale case survives, their example
being F against C — and led to two references worth more than the blog
post: the Isenberg et al. study that tested dual-scale charts, and Few's
article working through the cases. Both ship without full metadata
rather than guessed metadata; queued.

Pie and stacked posts gave verbatim support, plus one correction: a
100%-stacked chart has two readable baselines, not one.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01ULE5RRxdQE1ebwefEd2eCM
2026-08-05 17:37:47 +00:00
..

Fetched sources

Drop zone for pages an agent couldn't reach itself. One file per source, named for the row it answers — e.g. datawrapper-pie-charts.md, economist-mistakes.md.

No format requirements. Paste the relevant passages, or just write what the page says in a couple of sentences. Either works; the point is that a claim stops resting on recall.

Worth stating at the top of each file: where it came from and when, so a later reader can tell a 2018 position from a 2026 revision. Datawrapper's dual-axis post is exactly this trap — it was rewritten years after the version everyone quotes.

Keep files to the passages that matter. This repo is public, and these notes exist to check claims rather than to reproduce anyone's writing.

See ../source-requests.md for what's wanted and why.