Claim-to-source matrix
What Was Said Versus What The Supplied Record Shows
A statement can be important without being proven. This matrix identifies the speaker, the document, corroborating or contrary material in the supplied packet, and the limit of the conclusion.
Verbatim or accurately condensed text from a filed document, communication, or transaction record.
A later record or prepared summary that supports, qualifies, or conflicts with the earlier statement.
The supplied material does not establish the answer.
| Statement or action | Source | What the supplied record shows | Publication conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Virginia suffered cognitive impairment and symptoms “consistent with dementia” that prevented sound decisions. | Verified petition, SR-001 | The petition included no physician's report and stated that a future Caruso examination was scheduled. The later Rule 1006 summary, SR-006, reports improvement, no dementia diagnosis across the summarized providers, an express capacity finding at Sumner Regional, and no conservatorship recommendation from Vanderbilt Psychiatry. | The disability language was a sworn allegation when filed. The supplied medical summary materially conflicts with it, but the underlying charts remain to be published and independently checked. |
| Phillip financially exploited Virginia through unauthorized card transactions and recurring transfers from 2021–2023. | Verified petition, SR-001 | No bank statement, transaction report, credit-card record, or criminal record supporting those allegations appears in the supplied petition or the present publication packet. | Unverified in the supplied record. The allegation should never be restated as an established fact. |
| Virginia's bank-profile contact channels were redirected on December 12, 2024. | Bank notices, SR-005, pp. 1–2 | All three telephone fields were changed to Margaret Olea's number, and the primary email was changed from Phillip's address to Margaret's address at 8:03:10 p.m. | The changes are documented. The notices do not identify who made them or whether Virginia authorized them. |
| Virginia's money was used to pay the firm that started the conservatorship process. | Bank and Clio records plus filed response, SR-005, pp. 3–4, 6, 8 | The packet shows a $750 payment to Complete Wealth; a $5,500 transfer into an account listing Margaret as primary owner and Virginia as secondary; a $5,000 transaction to Complete Wealth Preservation; and Donald's later filed statement that he and Margaret used “those funds” to start the conservatorship process. | The transfer, payment chain, account relationship, and later explanation are documented. Authorization and legal characterization remain disputed and unresolved. |
| The family received notice at 5:41 p.m. on February 11. | Email to Phillip, SR-002 | The supplied email proves that Complete Wealth Preservation transmitted the petition to Phillip Olea at 5:41 p.m. | State only that Phillip was emailed at that time. The document does not establish when Virginia or every other relative received notice. |
| The emergency order transferred “20 of 21 rights.” | Filed order, SR-003 | The order contains sixteen lettered grants, a through p. The 2024 version of T.C.A. § 34-3-107 listed sixteen example categories, A through P; the order did not transfer the communication-and-visitation category P and added bodily-remains authority. | “20 of 21” is not supported by the supplied order and should not be published. Describe the actual sixteen grants instead. |
| The emergency order determined Virginia was incapacitated. | Order and T.C.A. § 34-1-132(c) | The order made disability-related findings. The emergency statute expressly said that emergency appointment, with or without notice, was not a determination of incapacity. | Describe the written findings and the statutory limit together. |
Language discipline
Use “the record shows” for an observable document fact; “the petition alleged” for an allegation; “the order found” for a judicial finding; “the Rule 1006 summary reports” for the prepared medical summary; and “unresolved” when the source packet does not answer the question.
Terms such as theft, fraud, exploitation, hijacking, bad faith, and incapacity require a controlling finding or must be attributed to the person or document that used them.