Source hierarchy
For specific claims, we prefer original documents and direct evidence. These can include regulator notices, legislation, official product documentation, filings, research papers, public datasets, app-store records, first-hand interviews and material supplied by an identified source.
Independent confirmation
An official announcement can establish what an organisation says, but it may not establish whether the claim is complete or independently proven. Important claims are compared with credible independent reporting, technical documentation, expert evidence or direct testing where available.
Discovery sources are not automatic proof
Social posts, forums, community reports and automated topic feeds can reveal a story worth checking. They are treated as leads unless the underlying evidence can be verified. Screenshots and copied statements are checked against their original location whenever possible.
Names, links and dates
Where it is safe and practical, articles identify the organisation, document or publication behind a claim and link to the source. We record review dates for material that can change, including prices, policies, product specifications and service availability.
Anonymous and confidential sources
A source may be unnamed when identification could create a genuine risk and the information has clear public value. The newsroom should know the person’s identity, assess their access to the information and seek supporting evidence. Anonymity is not used merely to avoid accountability.
Uncertainty and corrections
When a material fact cannot be confirmed, it is omitted or described with appropriate uncertainty. We do not invent missing prices, specifications, quotes, dates or names. New evidence is reviewed, and confirmed errors are corrected transparently.