## 2 Materials and Methods: The Archival Paradigm for Trusting Records
The content is also considered stable when changes to what we visualize at any given time are limited and controlled by fixed rules, so that the same query or interaction always generates the same result, and we have different views of different subsets of content\" ([7], p. 524). In short, the archival paradigm centers upon preserving both records and their context in such a way as to enable future users--without privileging any particular future use--to evaluateparticular records' evidentiary capacity, and use records judged to be trustworthy as evidence of past facts and acts. Records, by their nature, testify in a way that mere data cannot; records that are disaggregated, de-identified, or otherwise stripped of their context in the cloud lose their capacity to serve as trustworthy evidence. So what does it mean for a record to be trustworthy evidence? [PERSON]'s second proposition, \"[records'] trustworthiness is dependent upon the circumstances of their generation and preservation\" points to the elements underlying archival trustworthiness: reliability, accuracy, and authenticity. \"A record is considered reliable when it can be treated as a fact in itself, that is, as the entity of which it is evidence. For example, a reliable certificate of citizenship can be treated as the fact that the person in question is a citizen\" ([10], p. 6). Thus, a record's reliability is dependent upon the circumstances of creation; an unreliable record cannot be made reliable at some future point. Reliability is also dependent upon the competence of the author [7]; given the uncertain--and often undiscernible--creation and authorship of many records in the cloud, the hard truth is that individuals, businesses, and even governments find themselves depending on records that are per se unreliable. \"[A]ccuracy is defined as the correctness and precision of a record's content, based on [its reliability] and on the controls on the recording of content and its transmission\" ([7], p. 525). The third element of record trustworthiness is authenticity: \"a record is authentic when it is the document that it claims to be. Proving a record's authenticity does not make it more reliable than it was when created. It only warrants that the record does not result from any manipulation, substitution, or falsification occurring after the completion of its procedure of creation, and that it is therefore what it purports to be\" [10]. Even reliable records, when stored in the cloud through \"black box\" processes, become untrustworthy without procedures and safeguards in place to guarantee that they remain the same record that was originally stored in the cloud. Although ensuring the continuing availability of trustworthy records is the aim of archival science, the archival concept of \"trust\" is much further reaching. InterPARES Trust, a \"multi-national, interdisciplinary research project concerning digital records and data entrusted to the Internet\" [11] defines \"trust\" as the \"[c]confidence of one party in another, based on alignment of value systems with respect to specific actions or benefits, and involving a relationship of voluntary vulnerability, dependence, and reliance, based on risk assessment\" [12]. Ultimately, trust is not an absolute category; trust exists in degrees. \"The level of trust required is proportional to the sensitivity of the material to be trusted and the adverse consequences of its lack or loss of trustworthiness\" [7]. In the case of records in the cloud, it is increasingly clear that many parties are risking significant adverse consequences, with unsatisfactory assurances of the trustworthiness of CSPs.