Editorial method
How we verify claims
Every published result must lead back to a clear claim, dated evidence and identifiable sources. Automated tools may assist research, but editors approve the wording and result.
Five-stage process
- Intake.Record the claim, original URL, publication time, channel and relevant context.
- Evidence review.Consult official records, primary documents, open sources and qualified experts.
- Classification.Separate false facts, manipulation, missing context, insufficient evidence and verified information.
- Editorial approval.A human editor checks the wording, evidence trail, source links and potential harm before publication.
- Correction and review.New evidence triggers a new review. Substantive changes are dated and explained rather than silently overwritten.
Public record
What each published check records
- the exact checkable claim
- original publication, date and context
- primary and independent sources
- evidence and verification limits
- right-of-reply request and status
- editor, publication and correction dates
Result framework
- False
- The central factual claim is demonstrably untrue or fabricated.
- Manipulation
- Authentic facts are distorted, selectively framed or removed from essential context.
- Missing context
- The underlying material is genuine, but the accompanying interpretation is misleading.
- Unverified
- Available evidence is insufficient to confirm or refute the claim.
- Verified
- The claim is supported by reliable primary evidence.
Editorial safeguards
Source transparencyEvidence links and material limitations are visible to the reader.
Right of replyA person or organization directly assessed may provide evidence or a response.
Privacy and proportionalityPersonal data is not repeated unless it is necessary to understand the public-interest claim.
CorrectionsSubstantive changes are explained and dated.