JIDF shills are running a few new infiltration/division campaigns of late surrounding bakers and notables. Look for the words "factual," "sauce/sourced," and "speculation." They're trying to create confusion around these concepts, consistent with Alinsky tactics, namely "force the enemy to follow his own rules." In this case, the rule they're leveraging is that we prefer sauce for factual claims that go in notables. The Hegelian "problem" presented is arguing over whether notables are sufficiently sauced. Because the goy are naturally averse to being hypocrites (and averse to being "divisive"), the goal is to push us into either extreme in our desire to avoid the uncomfortable gray areas where argument occurs: either to cuck and allow all speculation/never require sauce (the preferred end result/compromise), or to get so strict about it no one's allowed to post a theory even just in-bread w/o "but muh factual evidence!" (the feared alternative/reaction to the problem which will corral us into the desired weakened state of willingly surrendered discernment.)
This campaign was heavier last few days and we pushed back, but it might resurface before they abandon it. They're not very creative, and tend to beat a "strategy" into the ground before trying a new one.