Be welcome Dave !
I thought about several techniques without getting complete satisfaction - not sure which would give me complete satisfaction ! But, probably not just an extra field; maybe by adding a Reference between the Citation and the object in which it is used, in which some of these concepts could find their place.
Here I use a pipe sign to separate the quote (the page if you want) from what interests me inside to source a given event:
There, I made the replication of a citation with Supertool in order to show if it is Direct or Indirect, Primary or Secondary information, and the 3rd character: Derivated or Original
A few days ago I tried (I shouldn’t have taken as a first source a letter that gives too much information) to bring out triplets (Type of data: [Element of information, Allegation], Event domain: [Death, Military, Family, …], Information taken from source) to associate them to the citation to event attributes, conclusive or not. Each triple is in a note of its own, I found this to be easier than making attributes to the citation:
I haven’t experimented enough with the latter yet to know whether or not it’s an interesting method, but I can already tell that it takes time… And I think the gedcom once released with all these notes is going to be horrible !
The first is not bad but does not have enough granularity, the second has some other purpose, and the third remains to be seen. The first seems understandable by those who read it.
Maybe a mix of the 3 would be more satisfying?? In any case, I’m still looking for a method that does what I want, in particular to prove - or not - things, and then to be able through filters to know whether or not I have things left to do. to verify this or that event (if I’m only hearsay allegations, it’s not the same as a contract signed at a notary concerning someone’s property for example…)