An announcement is a starting point, not a depth chart.
Recruiting research becomes useful when every statement keeps its own date, source and level of certainty. Start with what a school said, then add the historical production that can be verified.
An announcement confirms that a publisher reported an addition. It does not settle eligibility, a roster spot, health or the minutes a player will receive. The recruiting evidence board keeps the original source beside later redshirt or availability statements so a newer update does not erase the earlier record.
Three records answer three questions
School announcements answer what was publicly reported and when. The roster observation view answers which source-listed player and program affiliations appeared in a particular release. The player archive answers what happened in recorded college games. A missing observation is not a departure, and a prior team label is not a transfer explanation.
Those distinctions matter in the current file: 366 programs have model ratings, while recruiting coverage is a selected review rather than a national census. The program dossiers show historical workloads beside the source-listed roster view without feeding an unconfirmed listing into the forecast.
Read workload as represented evidence
Prior points and minutes describe the player’s previous sample. They do not add together into a guaranteed new-school rotation. A sum of prior MPG on the recruiting board means that much workload is represented by linked profiles in the reviewed file; it does not mean those players will share the same role or remain available.
Use the scouting board to compare complete historical records, then open the source statement and check the date. Keep prep and international additions separate when no college box-score profile exists. This produces a more honest briefing than filling gaps with a recruiting grade or an inferred departure.
Keep the forecast boundary visible
The 2026–27 model is a historical efficiency baseline. Its published forecast and retrospective evaluation remain unchanged by recruiting announcements, and a scenario in the game-plan workbench is a coaching question rather than a registered prediction. When a later source changes availability, update the evidence trail first; only a reviewed model release should change the forecast.
Read the model notebook for the exact training cutoff, source editions and known limitations. Good recruiting analysis does not hide uncertainty—it gives the staff a clear next verification step.
Data attribution: SportsDataverse, CC BY 4.0. See the source receipts and model notebook.