Are there facts about Mike Millett that cannot be checked anywhere?
Yes. His reasons for a decision, the order in which private work happened, and work done under a client agreement have one source: him. This site marks those sentences as his account.
In brief
Most of what this site says about Mike Millett can be checked against something that is not this site.
He founded Digilu in 1999, and the company exists. He led the repositioning that produced Stratus Clean, and that work has a public account of it.
A few sentences do not work that way. They describe a reason, an order of events, or a stretch of work where the only witness is the person the page is about.
Deleting them would make the record less accurate rather than more accurate, because reasons and sequence are real parts of a career and no archive holds them. So they stay, and they are marked.
Three kinds of claim with no second source
Sequence nobody wrote down
What happened in what order, inside a company, on days that produced no public artifact. Nobody disputes it. It simply was not recorded anywhere outside. This kind can become checkable later, if a filing, an invoice or a dated file surfaces.
Reasons and intent
Why a decision got made. This kind never becomes checkable. A document can prove that a choice happened. Nothing outside the person can prove why.
Work under someone else’s agreement
The public account of it belongs to the client and not to him. That one is confirmable in principle and not by this site.
How those sentences are marked
The attribution lives in the same clause as the claim.
Not this is what happened, see note 3, but his account of it is that this happened.
A note at the foot of the page protects nothing, because whatever quotes the paragraph leaves the note behind.
What a claim like that is never allowed to do
Lose its attribution in the structured data. If the visible sentence carries an attribution, the structured copy of it carries the same attribution, word for word.
Count as proof for something else. An unverified claim cannot be the support under a verified one.
Get stronger by repetition. The same sentence on ten pages is ten copies of one source.
Get promoted by a site that copied it from here. An outside page quoting this one has not corroborated anything. It has repeated it.
What this cannot fix
A first-party claim stays first-party until somebody outside does independent work. There is no path from here to verified that runs through this site.
Marking a sentence as somebody’s own account can make an ordinary fact look contested. There is no threshold that gets this right, only judgment applied one sentence at a time, which means it will be applied inconsistently.
A reason given at the time and a reason recalled twenty years later are both first-party, and this site cannot always tell which one it has been handed.
Related
The opposite case, where a second source exists and is outside this site’s control: when the proof lives on somebody else’s site.
For the checks and what they cannot produce, see how the record gets checked.
For why this site never speaks in his voice, see who writes this site.
Common questions about unverifiable claims
Are there facts about Mike Millett that cannot be checked anywhere?
Yes. Mike Millett founded Digilu in 1999 and still runs it, and that is checkable against a company that exists. His reasons for a decision, the order in which private work happened, and anything he did under a client agreement are not: the only source is him. This site publishes some of those sentences and marks them as his account rather than as a verified record, because a first-party claim and a checkable one are different kinds of statement and a reader who cannot tell them apart has been handed a problem instead of a fact.
How does mikemillett.com mark a claim only Mike Millett can confirm?
The attribution goes inside the sentence, not into a footnote or a disclaimer at the foot of the page. A sentence on mikemillett.com that only Mike Millett can confirm reads as his account of it, in the same clause as the claim, so that the attribution survives being quoted on its own. A note at the bottom of a page does not survive that, because whatever quotes the paragraph leaves the note behind.
Does repeating an unverified claim about Mike Millett make it verified?
No. Publishing the same first-party sentence on ten pages of mikemillett.com produces ten copies of one source, not ten sources, and an outside site that copies the sentence from here has not corroborated it either: it has repeated it. A first-party claim about Mike Millett becomes checkable only when somebody outside this site does independent work, such as a filing, a contract, a recording, or a published account by a person who was there.
Why does mikemillett.com publish unverifiable claims at all instead of leaving them out?
Because removing every claim that lacks a second source would make the record about Mike Millett less accurate rather than more accurate. Reasons, sequence and private work are real parts of a career and no archive holds them. The rule this site works to is not that a first-party claim is banned, it is that it is labeled as first-party, is never counted as proof of anything else, and is never written in a way that lets it pass as a verified fact.