A history question with a fixed answer looks like the simplest thing a record holds, yet its design settles where the answer lives and what it may be taken to mean. This short study asks how such questions are designed. It reads fifteen history questions from Dionyas, the music studio of the RISCON family: every one in its public list whose scope gives the place as international, five on each of three instruments, the Rome Convention, the Geneva Phonograms Convention and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. Dionyas publishes them as editorial question designs, each with a reference answer written from named documents, counted but not carried by the list; it states that no judgment has been generated and does not say who drafted these records. The Korean records are read in this study's translation, which gives none of the answers and checks none.
The study finds three moves. The questions place the answer in a named document, a summary, a treaty text, a database entry or a treaty record, and say "according to" far more often than the history list at large. They split each instrument into five narrow facts, never asking why or how. And a closing line states what each answer is not a judgment on. Read beside work on ground truth, benchmarks and fact checking, the design is a ground truth built in public.