---
tool_id: WACK-TOOL-0010
concept_id: WACK-CONCEPT-0019
playbook_content_id: WACK-CONTENT-0059
status: draft
technical_review: pending
artifact_type: working_worksheet
---

# Evidence Lineage Map

> Show every claim one artifact supports—and every limitation that travels with it.

**Expected output:** A source-to-claim lineage map with reuse rationale, supplemental evidence, and correction impact.  
**Working time:** 45 minutes  
**Derived from:** WACK-CONTENT-0059

## Working context

Organization / environment: __________________________________________  
Facilitator / owner: __________________________________________________  
Participants: _________________________________________________________  
Date: ____________________  Review trigger or next date: ______________

## 01 / Find — Locate the original artifact

Choose one heavily reused artifact and establish its source.

- [ ] **How, when, from where, and by whom was the original artifact collected?**

  Notes: ________________________________________________

- [ ] **Which filenames, exports, folders, control records, and reports contain copies or links?**

  Notes: ________________________________________________

## 02 / Map — Connect source to claims

Trace every use without treating repetition as corroboration.

- [ ] **Which distinct claim does each reuse support?**

  Notes: ________________________________________________

- [ ] **What system, population, configuration, and period does the source actually represent?**

  Notes: ________________________________________________

## 03 / Explain — Carry the limitations

State the reuse rationale and inherited boundary at every claim.

- [ ] **Which limitations travel from the original artifact to each dependent conclusion?**

  Notes: ________________________________________________

- [ ] **Which claim requires independent or supplemental evidence?**

  Notes: ________________________________________________

## 04 / Reduce — Control the copies

Replace uncontrolled duplication with stable lineage.

- [ ] **Which copies can be retired in favor of a canonical reference?**

  Notes: ________________________________________________

- [ ] **How will stale derivatives be identified when the source changes or is corrected?**

  Notes: ________________________________________________

## 05 / Prove — Test correction impact

Demonstrate that lineage supports maintenance as well as review.

- [ ] **If the source were incomplete today, which claims and publications would need review?**

  Notes: ________________________________________________

- [ ] **Who owns correction, regeneration, and reviewer notification across the dependency map?**

  Notes: ________________________________________________

## Completion check

- [ ] Every reuse names a distinct claim.
- [ ] Inherited limitations remain visible.
- [ ] A source correction has a defined impact path.

## Decision and next action

Decision: _____________________________________________________________  
Owner: __________________________  Due date: ___________________________  
Evidence or artifact location: ________________________________________

---

_Working practitioner worksheet pending technical review. It does not determine PCI DSS compliance, replace the standard, or replace instructions from an assessor or compliance-accepting entity. The Cluster of Wack is an independent resource and is not affiliated with or endorsed by PCI SSC._