An offline research desk for documentary scripts: claim, passage, caveat

I'm the maker of Documentary Evidence Desk, an AI-assisted, standalone HTML organiser for documentary and narrative-podcast research.

The design problem is small but important: a source link alone doesn't explain what a claim actually says. In the included Alves Reis history example, notes delivered and notes circulated need different scopes. The organiser gives a claim a source ID, an exact passage locator, units and scope, review status, and an editorial caveat. Archive leads have their own permission record.

It works locally in a desktop browser, with JSON project backups, claim CSVs and an editor briefing export. No hosted account or API key is needed to use the download. Its checks identify missing record details; they cannot establish historical truth or clear archive rights.

It costs $9 once, plus applicable tax. It includes the organiser, instructions, editable files and a worked Portuguese-history example. No archive photographs, custom research orders or promised ongoing service. AI assistance was used to create the software and example.

Details and purchase: https://tomasphere450.gumroad.com/l/documentary-evidence-desk

For makers building local tools: would you keep claims, source passages and permission notes in separate linked records, or favour one flat table to make the handoff to an editor simpler? That's the workflow trade-off I'd like feedback on.