An Asian Dota 2 tournament dataset can mix very different evidence: an invitation announcement, a qualifier schedule, an organiser bracket and a broadcast replay. Each answers a different question. This guide uses The International 2026 regional announcements to show how to preserve provenance for China and Southeast Asia while keeping unverified results out of a published statistical table.
Start with what the official announcement establishes
The official invitations and qualifiers announcement lists China’s regional qualifier for 15–18 June 2026 with two places, and Southeast Asia’s for 19–23 June with one. Those are announced schedule and allocation facts. They do not identify the final qualified teams by themselves. During this review, the official search index exposed those statements while direct page extraction returned no article body. The evidence record therefore marks the source as index-verified, rather than claiming that a full results report was read.
A provenance table for the Asian qualifier record
| Item | Evidence or distinction | Review question |
|---|---|---|
| China regional qualifier | Announced 15–18 June 2026; two places | Requires separate official evidence for the winners. |
| Southeast Asia regional qualifier | Announced 19–23 June 2026; one place | Do not merge with an open-qualifier bracket. |
| Open qualifier window | Announcement listed 9–12 June 2026 | A window does not identify every individual match time. |
| Regional qualifier window | Announcement listed 15–28 June 2026 overall | The overall window is broader than either Asian regional block. |
| Broadcast archive | Official conclusion points to Dota 2 YouTube replays | Video availability is different from a structured results feed. |
This table is an evidence map, not a completed tournament database. It shows precisely which fields can be populated from the sources consulted and which remain dependent on another official record.
Separate entry stages before collecting scores
The main TI 2026 announcement distinguishes open and regional qualifiers. Assign those stages different identifiers in your collection. A team can appear in both, so a repeated name does not automatically mean a duplicate row. Link the stages through an explicit progression record. If a team received an invitation, keep the invitation basis distinct from a played qualifier result. This prevents a dataset from inventing a match to explain an entry route or counting the same progression twice under slightly different tournament titles.
Build a claim-level evidence record
For each result you intend to publish, store the assertion, the official source location, the observation date and the type of evidence available. A bracket can establish progression, while a replay may help verify what occurred in a particular game. Keep the original wording of an organiser correction in a private research note and publish a concise explanation in your own words. Where a page is unavailable, record the missing field explicitly. Do not convert an absent score into zero, a forfeiture or an administrative decision without a source that actually says so.
Use replays as inspectable evidence
Valve’s official tournament conclusion points readers to the Dota 2 YouTube channel for broadcast replays. For a video-supported observation, record the official video identifier and the relevant interval, then distinguish the game footage from commentary or an on-screen graphic. A caster’s provisional statement is not necessarily the final organiser decision. If the score graphic conflicts with a later corrected bracket, preserve the discrepancy and seek the ruling. Video can support review without becoming a licence to redistribute a full broadcast or to claim unavailable telemetry.
Define the Asian comparison cohort
Decide whether the study concerns teams assigned to a regional qualifier, teams based in a particular country or matches played at an Asian venue. These are different populations and should not be silently substituted for one another. For a China-versus-Southeast-Asia qualifier comparison, use the published regional fields and describe the unequal announced place counts. Keep direct invitations outside a qualifier-only denominator. Explain exclusions, including unreadable matches, so readers can assess coverage. Any calculated percentage should identify the included stage and number of observations instead of implying that it represents all professional Dota in Asia.
A publication checklist for tournament provenance
- Use the current event year and distinguish open from regional qualifiers.
- Attach each schedule, allocation and result claim to its own evidence.
- Label official-index verification honestly when the full page cannot be read.
- Preserve corrections and unresolved discrepancies.
- Define the regional cohort and disclose missing matches before calculating summaries.
A careful dataset may initially contain fewer results than an unsourced table. Its advantage is that every published figure has an inspectable basis and each gap has a clear next step. Future tournament editions should begin with their own announcement and rules, rather than inheriting the 2026 schedule or allocation.
Frequently asked questions
Can an invitation announcement prove a qualifier winner?
No. It establishes the announced entry structure. A final result needs a source that records the outcome.
Why identify a source as official-index verified?
Because the publisher’s indexed text was available but the full page body was not retrieved. The label keeps the evidence limit visible.
Does an Asian venue make every participating team an Asian qualifier team?
No. Venue, team identity and regional entry route are separate attributes and require a defined comparison cohort.
Sources and verification
- The International 2026 invitations and qualifiers — Valve — 2026-10-23
- The International 2026 announcement — Valve — 2026-10-23
- The International 2026 Grand Champions — Valve — 2026-10-23