How Classification Works.
The Bureau of Fish Classification operates a six-stage process for every classification: intake, preliminary assessment, full assessment, deliberation, finding, and publication. No stage may be skipped. No finding may be issued without completing all prior stages. This applies even when the outcome is obvious.
The process exists because consistency matters. A Bureau that skips stages for obvious cases creates precedent for skipping stages in ambiguous ones. Every fish receives the same process. Anchovy received the same process as Tip #83. The time spent differs. The stages do not.
This document describes the process in full. It is public because the Bureau’s credibility depends on its process being legible. If you disagree with a finding, you should understand how we arrived at it before disputing it. If you are considering submitting a tip, you should know what happens after you do.
Intake.
A classification begins when a fish is identified for assessment. This may occur through the tip line, through panel nomination, or because the fish came up in discussion and no one present was certain of its status.
Upon intake, the subject is assigned a Finding number. This number is sequential and permanent. Finding numbers are not reassigned. If a classification is withdrawn before a finding is issued (which has not happened), the number would remain in the record as withdrawn, not reassigned to another fish.
At intake, the Bureau also determines whether the case is standard or requires special handling. Standard cases proceed through normal deliberation. Special handling may be warranted when: the subject is unusual, the tip includes materials that require restricted access, or preliminary review raises questions the panel is not prepared to address immediately.
Regarding Tip #83 (Finding 010): That case was flagged for special handling following initial review of submitted materials. It remains in special handling. The Bureau declines to elaborate further in this document.
Assessment.
Assessment is the primary information-gathering stage. The panel reviews all available evidence relevant to the classification criteria. This includes morphological data, habitat information, behavioral observations, and any materials submitted by the tip line.
Assessment typically requires one to three sessions. Simple cases (anchovy: one session, eleven minutes) require less time than complex ones (tuna: three sessions). Complexity is not correlated with difficulty. Tuna was straightforward. It took three sessions because the Bureau was being thorough in its inaugural classification. The outcome was never in doubt.
Assessment ends when the panel is satisfied that it has reviewed all relevant evidence. Satisfaction is determined by the panel. There is no fixed endpoint. This is intentional.
The Criteria.
Five criteria must be met for fish classification. All five are required. Partial compliance does not constitute partial fish classification. A subject is either a fish or it is not.
| Criterion | Requirement | Notes | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aquatic Habitat | Subject must live in water as its primary environment | Temporary land presence permitted. Permanent land residence disqualifying. “Primarily in a can” is not a habitat designation. | Required |
| Fin Structure | At least one fin must be present and functional | Specific fin types vary by species. A sword is not a fin (Finding 008, memo, resolved). Extensions of the face that aid in hunting are not fins. | Required |
| Gill Respiration | Primary breathing mechanism must be gills | Some fish have accessory organs. Gills must be present. Lungs as primary mechanism disqualify (see: whales, dolphins, every mammal). | Required |
| Vertebral Column | Internal skeleton, bony or cartilaginous | Distinguishes fish from invertebrates. Cartilage is acceptable (sharks, rays). No internal skeleton: not a fish. | Required |
| Zero Legs | No legs present, historically documented, or anticipated | The Bureau checks for legs as standard procedure. No classified fish has ever had legs. The Bureau checks anyway. “Those aren’t legs” is reviewed, not assumed. | Required |
Deliberation.
Following assessment, the panel deliberates. All three members must be present. Deliberation cannot occur with a reduced panel. This is why Finding 010 is suspended: one panel member is on leave, and classification cannot proceed at reduced capacity.
Deliberation is open-ended. The panel discusses the evidence, applies the criteria, and reaches a conclusion. Conclusion requires consensus. A 2-1 vote does not constitute a finding. If the panel cannot reach consensus, the case returns to assessment for additional evidence gathering.
This has not happened yet. All three closed cases reached consensus in the first deliberation session. Pending cases have not yet reached the deliberation stage officially, though the panel has discussed them informally. Informal discussion does not constitute deliberation. Deliberation is a formal stage.
The Finding.
Once the panel reaches consensus, a formal finding is drafted, reviewed, and issued. The finding includes: the subject’s name, its classification (fish or not-fish), the date of finding, the evidence considered, and the panel’s collective determination.
Findings are final upon issuance. They may be disputed (see: Dispute Process, below). They may be reopened if new evidence emerges that was not available during assessment. Neither of these has occurred for any closed finding. Tuna remains a fish. Mackerel remains a fish. Anchovy remains a fish. One person tried to dispute the tuna finding. Their dispute was reviewed and rejected.
Following issuance, the finding is published to the Bureau website, added to the classification index, and the case file is marked closed. Closed cases remain in the public record permanently.
Typical Timeline.
Classification timelines vary. The Bureau does not commit to specific durations. These ranges reflect actual case history to date.
Finding number assigned. Preliminary materials reviewed. Case designated standard or special handling. Panel notified.
One to three sessions typically. Simple cases (anchovy) resolve in one session. Complex or cautious cases (tuna, inaugural classification) take three. Special cases have no defined timeline.
Panel convenes formally. Evidence reviewed collectively. Consensus reached. This stage has taken between eleven minutes (anchovy) and two hours (tuna) in completed cases.
Finding document prepared. Reviewed by all three panel members. Signed. Published to the Bureau record. Case marked closed.
Closed cases are monitored for status changes. Tuna has not changed. The Bureau does not expect tuna to change. Monitoring continues regardless.
Exceptions & Special Circumstances.
The Bureau has encountered several circumstances that required procedural adaptation. These are documented here for transparency and for the benefit of future cases.
The Name Question (Finding 007 — Mahi-Mahi): A name that repeats itself is not grounds for classification delay, but it is grounds for preliminary inquiry. The inquiry was conducted. The name was explained. Assessment proceeded. Future cases with unusual names will be handled similarly.
The Sword Situation (Finding 008 — Swordfish): A feature that is not a leg is not a disqualifying feature. A sword extending from a fish’s face is anatomically unusual but classification-irrelevant. An internal memo addressed this. The memo is closed.
The Something (Finding 009 — Unnamed Item): When a feature cannot be characterized, assessment continues until it can be. The Bureau does not issue findings on incomplete assessments. The something will be characterized. This has not yet happened.
Reduced Panel Capacity (Finding 010): Classification requires a full panel. If a panel member is unavailable, classification is suspended. There is no mechanism for a 2-person panel to issue a finding. This is by design. It has not been a problem before Finding 010.
Prior Findings as Precedent.
Closed findings establish precedent for future cases. The following precedents are currently active.
Disputing a Finding.
Any finding may be disputed. Disputes must be submitted through the tip line dispute form. They must identify the finding being disputed and provide specific grounds for dispute. “I disagree” is not specific grounds. “The subject does not meet criterion X because of evidence Y” is specific grounds.
Disputes are reviewed by the full panel. The panel considers whether the dispute presents new evidence not considered during the original assessment or identifies a procedural error in the classification process. If neither is present, the dispute is rejected and the finding stands.
One dispute has been received to date. It was a dispute of Finding 001 (Tuna). It did not present new evidence. It did not identify a procedural error. It asserted that tuna is not a fish. The panel reviewed the assertion. The assertion was incorrect. The finding stands. Tuna is a fish.
The submitter of that dispute was informed of the outcome. Their response to that information is not part of the Bureau’s public record.