UAP Evidence Routing: Public Topic Guide

This note routes the highest-salience Release 3 topics into local source families without relying on outside coverage. It cites the Release 3 source index uap-data.csv, the domestic FBI orb/video lane in C51 - FBI Domestic Orb and Witness Chain, the modern sensitive-site packet in C50 - Western US Event Narrative and Rendering Packet, the historical policy lane in C49 - CIA Scientific Advisory and Historical Control Layer, the declassified foreign-power intelligence lead guide in C67 - Declassified CIA Intelligence Leads on Foreign-Power Retrieval Claims, the Australian intelligence companion in C68 - Australian JIO UFO Intelligence Assessment, and the media crosswalk in C53 - Release 3 DVIDS Media Triage.

Release 3 changes the archive's public posture because it is not only a military-sensor release. It gives the viewer a mixture of private-citizen phone footage, FBI interview chains, official witness renderings, historical intelligence records, NASA/spaceflight material, and conventional-analysis controls. That mix is the story: the release places ordinary witness media beside formal government intake and older policy documents, so the analysis layer has to distinguish evidence types instead of flattening them into one disclosure claim.

The domestic orb lane is the most immediately visual. Orbs Over the Pond and Northeastern Orb Sighting carry descriptions of plasma-like luminosity, smooth and silent movement, hovering near water or tree lines, separation into smaller points, tandem behavior, and possible merging. Those claims need frame review, geospatial reconstruction, weather/astronomical checks, and low-light phone-camera controls before any physical-performance conclusion.

The Western U.S. event is different. Its strongest evidence is not a camera frame; it is a packet: official case update, map, five witness narratives, still renderings, and digital recreations. Its analysis should be document-first. The renderings are valuable because they preserve what witnesses and interviewers thought needed visualizing, but they are not sensor evidence and should not be promoted into direct imagery of the objects.