Many talk about standards of evidence. Lately, I've started to wonder about standards for a lack of evidence. When large-scale UAP sky surveys publish the results of their work, it would be beneficial to see not only the final list of candidates, but also the objects they initially got excited about before dismissing them as false positives -- with the all raw data and the reasons for filtering them out. If we are to assess what a survey did -- or did not -- find, we need to see what was discarded along the way. This is a matter of transparency, which is naturally important in a field where science meets national security interests. And where some anomalies could otherwise mysteriously be filtered out and “lost”. Some scientists will also filter out or downplay interesting findings just to protect their reputation and credibility. One could compare this to testing a new medicine: you report all the side effects patients experience, even if they later turn out to be unrelated to the treatment or occur in the placebo group.