TROI

TROI (should not be confused with TORI) is set of 4 requirements for analysis of historic publications. These requirements are
Transparency: The origin and context of the information are clearly described
Replicability or Reproducibility: Independent observers can verify the claim
Openness: Evidences are available for inspection
Identifiability: Sources are identifiable
Name TROI appears as abbreviation from the first letters of the four lines above.
TROI can be considered as a reduced, simplified version of the TORI axioms.
As in the case of TORI axioms, the TROI criteria do not qualify the input statement as "true" or "false". These criteria refer to the way the concept is described, presented: does the presentation simplify the testing of the main concept or tries to make it difficult.

Transparency

This criterion reveal, whether the origin and context of the information are clearly described. The authors are assumed to show how do they obtain the result presented.

Transparency means that the authors of the publications about some topic try to formulate the relevant questions and try to find answers, performing the internet search, logical deduction, interviewed the involved persons and expousing the results of their work in the free access.

If one describes, for example a Perpetual motion machine (device that violates the fundamental of Physics), the author is supposed to describe, how other researcher can independently get the similar knowledge. Implicit (not declared) violation of fundamental of Physics can be qualified as a fraud; see «Gravitsapa», «Квантовый структурный преобразователь»(sorry, only the Russian version is available), «Money laundering».

Replicability

Replicability, Reproducibility means that the Independent observers can verify the claim.

This means that several authors create the topic in different ways, but come to the similar conclusions.

Openness

Openness means that the evidences are available for inspection.

This means, that the evidences suggested in publications, can be inspected and verified by readers.

If the author claims, that the famous painting Mona Lisa is exposed in the Louvre museum, then, it is supposed that the Reader may visit Louvre and see the painting.

If the author claim, that some company sells the cheap household robots, then the shop and the price need to be specified.

And so on.

Identifiability

Identifiability is similar to transparency, but refers to other persons, colleagues, eyewitnesses who helped to obtain the result.

Identifiability means that the authors identify the partners who provide the information.

For example, the Old Testament (first and main big part of the modern Bible) is written mainly by legendary Moses from explanatiotns by God («God-father»),

The Koran (Quran) was written by Muhammad, following Allah.

The Mein Kampf is written by Adolf Hitler and then used as a canonical text of the German National Socialism (Nationalsozialismus, ナチズム, nazism, нацизм, социализм).

The authors could see something with their own eyes; then, the time and place need to be specified.

The authors could hear something from some persons; these persons need to be identified with their names, their affiliations, their pictures, their movies, etc.

The authors could get some information from some open access sites. The URLs of these cites need to be specified.

There is nothing wrong if some author gets some statement(s) directly from God, but in this case, this should be explicitely specified. Then, the article, book does not confuse adepts of other religions; their God(s) may say something very different or even just opposite.

Example: The New Testament

The adventure of Jesus from Nazareth at the beginning of Our Epoch are described in the New Testament; it forms the important part of the modern Bible.

Transparency: the New testament had been rewritten hundreds manually before invention of printers, displays and computers. The description is detailed (and very long).

Replicability, reproducibility: Some actions described in the New Testament are difficult to reproduce: reanimation of a man who dead many years ago, conversion of water into wine, walking on water, etc.

Openness: The content of Bible is available for everybody.

Identifiability: The four independent descriptions are supplied:

1. The Gospel According to Saint Matthew
2. The Gospel According to Saint Mark
3. The Gospel According to Saint Luke
4. The Gospel According to Saint John

In this sense, the adventures of Jesus at Palestine are described much more carefully, than, for example, the cosmic adventure of Gagarin Yuri Alekseevich.

Example: Cosmic flight of Gagarin Yuri Alekseevich

The cosmic flight by Gagarin Yuri Alekseevich form important part of Sovetism, Soviet propaganda.

The most criticized adventure of Gagarin, namely, his cosmic flight, is poorly documented see «1961.04.12.Сообщения ТАСС» and «Сообщение ТАСС от 12 апреля 1961 года»; at least for public who have no access to the "classified", secret information. In this sense, his flight is documented much poorer than the adventures of Jesus from Nazareth.

Consider the Gedankenexperiment below; it is a little bit exaggerated:

Mathematician Ivan Matov hears the news about the Gagarin's flight.
Matov has no access to the tracks by foreign radars.
Matov did not perform any orbital mechanics calculations.
Matov has no access to the spacecraft classified documentation and telemetry.
Matov has no access to the insider information on the Korolev Cosmic Center.
But Matov hears the fragments of the radio transmission «Чувствую себя хорошо». The same one could say being at Lubyanka in front of sadists ready to kill him in a painful way, if he does not say the recommended words.
Matov buys the «Известия» newspaper and read the reportage, that literally reproduces that he heard by radio.
Matov searches in another newspapers, looking for some interviews with the eyewitnesses of landing of Gagarin. Looking for pictures made by Gagarin from cosmos. There is nothing of that, only the same reportage. And many congratulations from a wide variety of people:
From miners of Donbass.
From prisoners of the concentration camp in Magadan.
From sexworkers in Sochi.
From patients of the psychiatric stationar.
From children at kindergarten.
From milkmaids at a pig farm in Tmutarakansk region.
From sailors on a submarine that follows an American aircraft carrier while remaining submerged for many days.
From alpinists who just have climbed up some "Peak of Communism".
And so on.
Matov analyzes all this absurd and formulates the hypothesis: Gagarin did not fly in cosmos.
Being honest researcher, Matov tries to refute his hypothesis.
Matov switch on the TV, with a hope to see the movie made by Gagarin during the flight. There is no such a movie.
No any photo that Gagarin was supposed to make being in space.
No any movie of landing of Gagarin «в заданном районе».
No interviews with eyewitnesses of its landing.
Only the same reportage (with minimal variations) from everywhere.
Matov concludes, that his hypothesis shows excellent agreement with observations.
His hypothesis becomes Theory: All the official news about the flight of Gagarin are fakes, propaganda, misinformation.
Even if Gagarin indeed was in cosmos, the top engineer Sergei Korolev and gensek Nikita Khrushchev failed to bring this bit of information to mathematician Ivan Matov.

This is end of the Gedankenexperiment. Analyze its results:

The first reports about the Gagarin cosmic flight look as if they were be constructed following the recipe «How to Write a Fake» (although the publications about Gagarin had appeared half-centiry earlier that the recipe «How to Write a Fake» had been uploaded).

It is difficult to consider the personage Ivan Matov (or Editor) to be more intelligent than Sergei Korolev and Nikita Khrushchev.

The bunch of absurd official reports about Gagarin's cosmic flight could be intentionally, deliberately fabricated, to reveal disloyal Moscovites (to imprison, kill, or expel them from the USSR).

With the similar goal, the legendary Zhao Gao (趙高) had qualified a dear as a horse .

With the similar goal, the Soviet fascists were talking about communism, at least during the USSR.

The publicly available reports about the Gagarin cosmic flight, considered in this Gedankenexperiment, do not satisfy the criteria TROI.

At the first approach, the official reports about the Gagarin's flight can be interpreted with the Rule of Newspeak (Правило новояза); all the non-trivial statements of the propagandistic reports need to be inverted.

Example: Witkoff Statement on Iranian Uranium Stockpiles

Since 2026.03.03, the publications are observed with claim that the USA-Iran war since 2026.02.28 had been provoked by menaces of the strangers who pretended to be Iranian Negotiators.

According to the legend these strangers had said to Steve Vitkoff that the Iranian Uranium Stockpiles already count with 460 kg of weapon-grad Uranium enriched to 60% and the enrichment to 90% is expected, and this amount allows Iran to assemble 11 nuclear bombs to apply them against the USA and thе USA allies.

No any confirmation of this claim at Iranian sites is found: Ali Khamenei does not confirm that he had sent the Iranian Negotiators with such a provocative declaration.

The statement by Steve Vitkoff had been reproduced many times in almost identical forms, without attempt to identify the «Iranian Negotiators». This multitude cause doubts in existence of the «Iranian Negotiators».

The claim by Steve Vitkoff does not satisfy the TROI criteria.

To year 2026, the top of American administraton are qualified as liars, they seem to follow the Rule of Newspeak. They seem to act in interests of China and Russian usurper Putin, in order to boost, to prolong the Putin world war, to extend, to expand it to Western Europe, to Asia and to North America, to rise-up the Putin world war to the scale of the World War II or even worse, as it is described in movie «The Day After»; see «Annexation of Canada», «Annexation of Greenland», «CivilWar2024», «Donald Trump», «Steve Witkoff», «Trump and Vance», «Trump as KGB agent», «TrumptyDumpty», «TrumpForever», «Witkoff-Lavrov Pact», «Witkoff-Lavrov Pact Emulation», «Мы попадём в рай а они сдохнут», «Трамп Дональд Фредович», «Трампнаш».

See «Witkoff Statement on Iranian Uranium Stockpiles» for the references.

Failure of the TROI criteria does not prove the claim false, but indicates that the publicly available description does not allow independent verification.

Therefore alternative interpretations remain possible.

Example: construction of Superfunctions

Editor tries to provide the Transparency, Reproducibility, Openness, Identifiability describing Superfunctions:

The methods and algorithms are described. The colleagues can download the generators of the pictures and to reproduce them. These algorithms are loaded in the free open access. The colleaguues who work on the topic are named and cited.

TROI criteria and TORI axioms

TROI looks similar to the TORI axioms.

Initially, the TORI axioms had been designed and formulated for analysis of manuscripts on Laser Science, including the Noninear Optics and Quantum Optics. Then, empirically, they happen to be applicable to other branches of Physics and, in general, to any Science.

The most of historical news, observed in publications, do not satisfy the set of TORI axioms; the publications are not scientific. On the other hand, the publication still can be pretty honest, interesting and useful.

For these cases, in 2026 March, ChatGPT suggests TROI. This suggestion is accepted by Editor.

In such a way, the TROI appear as a softened analogy of the TORI axioms.

In the most of cases, at least for the popular publications, application of the TROI criteria and the TORI axioms give the similar results; and the TROI look simpler than TORI.

In the common area of applicability, following the last, 6th go the TORI axioms, the simplest concept has priority.

For this reason, in the simple cases, the TROI criteria can be used instead of the TORI axioms.

Comparison of TROI criteria and TORI axioms:

Property	TROI criteria	TORI axioms
Purpose	Quick evaluation of reliability of historical or journalistic publications	Evaluation of scientific concepts and theories
Number of criteria	4 criteria	6 axioms
Main focus	Structure of information and accessibility of evidence	Logical consistency and scientific testability
Typical application	Analysis of news reports, historical narratives, political statements	Analysis of scientific manuscripts and theoretical concepts
Key criteria	Transparency, Replicability, Openness, Identifiability	Transparency, Openness, Replicability, Identifiability, Selfconsistency, Refutability
Result of analysis	Determines whether a claim is publicly verifiable	Determines whether a concept satisfies scientific methodological requirements
Relation	Simplified operational subset	Full methodological framework

Example: Biogenesis

Sometimes, the public opinion is just wrong. Here are the examples:
«The probability to win in a casino is always less than a half, independeltly on strategy.»
«The Classical Mechanics is deterministic concept while the Quantum Mechanics is internally statistical theory..»
«The creation of life by God is religious concept, while the self-genesis of life is scientific concept.»
For the last case, the TROI criteria seem to fail. However the TORI axiom about the Refutability indicates that Biogenesis is scientific concept while self-generation of life is not.

Biogenesis is scientific concept that The living objects come only from living objects and cannot arise from a non-living substance .

Biogenesis is supported at https://creationwiki.org/Biogenesis and criticized at https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abiogenesis .

Concept of Biogenesis is difficult to treat with TROI. However the Third of the TORI axioms (Refutability) does the job.

There is no description of such any hypothetical result of any hypothermic experiment that would deny the hypothesis that the life at the Earth raised from non-living matter by itself. In this sense, the concept of self-creation of live is not refutable.

Consider the following concept:

The live at the Earth had been created by God and the living object cannot be created form non-living matter in a laboratory.

This concept had been confirmed by many experiments.

However this concept is refutable: the reproducible experiment on creation of life in laboratory from non-living objects would refute the concept.

In in such a way, Biogenesis is an example where the TROI criteria are not sufficient, and the TORI axtioms are necessary tod the classification of the concepts.

How to Write a Fake

The special instruction «How to Write a Fake» is suggested.

It shows, how to make an article, that DOES NOT satisfy the TROI criteria.

However, the same recipes help to recognize a fake.
Namely this is supposed to be the main application, main goal and the main meaning of the "instruction".

Motivated reasoning

In general, fakes do not satisfy the TROI criteria (nor the TORI axioms).

The extremal cases of a fake and cases of defending a fake are qualified with term Motivated reasoning.

Motivated reasoning is the main tool of any Demagogy, Dialectic, Doublethink (see «Orwell1984»), Double standard, Propaganda, Realpolitik.

The goal of the Motivated reasoning have nothing to do with the deduciton; it has no goal to reveal the truth, nor to analyze efficiency of a concept, but to promote some doubtful, non-scientific concept.

Several tools of the Motivated reasoning are collected in article «Female logic» by Beklemishev Dmitry Vladimirovich (Russian original: «Заметки о женской логике» by Беклемишев Дмитрий Владимирович ). The title may be a little bit confusing: both males and females use these tools, although, perhaps, they do not know it, - in the similar way, as personage Louis Jourdain did not know that he speaks in prose .

Warning

TROI do not specify, is the message observed in publicaiotns true or false; in this, these criteria are similar to the TORI axioms.

The same refers to the examples considered.

Editor does not claim that Jesus from Nazareth used to walk on water.

Editor does not claim that Gagarin did not fly in cosmos.

Editor does not claim that the life at the Earth had been created by God.

Editor does not claim that Ali Khamenei did not sent the secret «Iranian negotiators» with menaces to Steve Witkoff in order to cause, to provoke, to trigger the full-scale USA-Iran war since 2026.02.28.

The claim is that using the TROI criteria, the publications observed can be interpreted in terms of the concepts mentioned above.

Perhaps, with other criteria, these publications can be interpreted in other way. Colleagues are invited to formulate the other criteria and to apply them to the cases mentioned.

Attribution

The concept TROI was introduced in March 2026 as a simplified operational subset of the TORI axioms intended for analysis of historical publications and media narratives where full scientific verification is usually impossible.

Initial formulation and editing by Editor with assistance from ChatGPT. The concept emerged during discussions on the applicability of TORI axioms to historical and journalistic sources.

Notes by ChatGPT

TROI = simplified operational subset of TORI for analyzing historical publications.

Your structure now demonstrates three regimes:

| Case                  | TROI result                     |
| --------------------- | ------------------------------- |
| **Gagarin reports**   | weak transparency               |
| **Witkoff statement** | weak identifiability            |
| **Superfunctions**    | strong TROI                     |
| **Biogenesis debate** | TROI insufficient → TORI needed |

That is actually a **very elegant didactic progression**.

A minimal operational formulation of credibility criteria already used since early experimental science .

References

Keywords

«1961.04.12.Сообщения ТАСС», «Bible», «Biogenesis», «Call things with their proper names», «Communism», «Female logic», «Gagarin did not fly in cosmos», «Gagarin Yuri Alekseevich», «How to Write a Fake», «Iranian Negotiators», «Iranian negotiators», «Khruschev Nikita Sergeevich», «Korolev Sergei Pavlovich», «Motivated reasoning», «Philosophy», «Propaganda», «Rule of Newspeak», «Superfunctions», «TORI axioms», «TROI», «Witkoff Statement on Iranian Uranium Stockpiles», «Witkoff-Lavrov Pact Emulation», «Zhao Gao»,

«Гагарин Юрий Алексеевич», «Королёв Сергей Павлович», «Называть вещи своими именами», «Правило новояза», «Пропаганда», «Сообщение ТАСС от 12 апреля 1961 года», «Трамп Дональд Фредович», «Хрущев Никита Сергеевич»,