Articles fact-check methodology

The whole system rests on the loop, not on promises:

1. 1

   Articles ship with their fact-check

   Every published article that makes verifiable claims gets a per-article report at /articles/<slug>/fact-check.

2. 2

   Readers verify by clicking sources

   Every claim has at least one URL. A reader who wants to know 'is this still true?' clicks through to the primary source and sees the answer directly — not as our claim, as the source's claim.

3. 3

   Readers who find issues tell us

   Every report ends with a contact link: if a claim doesn't match its cited source, or a source has changed since the verification date, that's a single click to flag. One careful reader catches what we missed.

4. 4

   We re-check what's flagged

   And update the article + report, advancing the verification date.

It is: a reproducible, dated, source-anchored check that each verifiable claim in an article holds up against authoritative sources at the time of verification.

It isn't: proofreading, editing, agreement with the article's framing, opinion review, or endorsement of recommendations. Editorial judgment and factual accuracy are separate concerns; the fact-check addresses only the second.

Domain-agnostic categories. Some apply to every article; some only to certain domains. Each verifiable claim is categorized under one of these.

These appear in articles but aren't amenable to source verification. They're skipped entirely (not even listed as “Unverifiable” — that status is for items that shouldbe verifiable but aren't).

• Editorial framing — “California has some of the strictest rules” is interpretive.
• Tonal claims and voice — “The remedy is good records, not silence” is opinion.
• Hypotheticals — “If you discover you've been doing this wrong...” is counterfactual.
• Recommendations — “Standardize to California's rules” is guidance.

Source-preference starting points for common article domains. These aren't rules — the Tier 1/2/3 hierarchy applies universally. These examples help find the right sources for a domain quickly when you're adopting the methodology for your own content.

For high-stakes claims — major dollar amounts, court holdings, statistical aggregates that anchor an article's argument — we look for multiple independent sources. Independent means the sources don't all trace back to the same underlying report. Two news outlets citing the same press release is one source, not two.

When only one independent source is available, that's noted in the report. Single-source verification isn't disqualifying; it's just information for the reader.

Sources move, change, and disappear. For Tier 3 and time-sensitive Tier 2 sources, we capture an archive URL (Wayback Machine web.archive.org/web/<URL> or similar) alongside the live URL, so the verification stays anchored even if the original page changes.

For Tier 1 statutes/regulations, the live URL is sufficient — the issuing body maintains the canonical text.

For each claim:

1. Read in context. Capture the full meaning. A claim taken out of context can be technically true but misleading.
2. Strip to the verifiable fact. What concrete, sourceable thing am I checking?
3. Find the Tier 1 source. Drop to Tier 2 only if Tier 1 isn't available; Tier 3 as last resort.
4. Cross-check with a second independent source for high-stakes claims.
5. Confirm currency. Has the statute been amended? Has the case been overruled? Has the dataset been superseded?
6. Record the result. Claim text, primary source URL, secondary source URL (if used), archive URL (if needed), status, verification date.

The trust signal is the artifact itself. These principles uphold the artifact even when they cost us (showing a ✗ Issue hurts more than hiding it; we show it anyway).

1. Mark every unverifiable claim. Don't quietly omit unverifiable items — list them with ⓘ status.
2. Show every source URL. The reader should be able to click and verify.
3. Explain conflicts. When sources disagree, show both and describe how we picked (or marked Partial).
4. Date everything. Per-claim, per-article, per-methodology.
5. Mark issues. ✗ Issue means the article needs revision. Don't ship a fact-check that papers over real problems.
6. Cite primary where possible. When Tier 2/3 is used, note why Tier 1 wasn't available.
7. Reproducibility. A second person following this methodology on the same article should produce a report with the same counts, the same source citations, and the same status assignments.
8. Non-partisanship at the claim level. Every verifiable claim gets the same scrutiny regardless of whether confirming or contradicting it favors a particular reading of the topic. The status assignment follows the sources, not the article's framing.

The principles above are easier to see by contrast. The fact-checking patterns below are common, look credible, and don't actually verify anything. They're what this methodology is designed to prevent — by construction, not discipline.

• Rubber-stamping. A check that always returns ✓ Verified. If a process can't produce ✗ Issue / 🕐 Outdated outcomes, it's not a check — it's a stamp. Our reports surface real issues when we find them.
• Source-laundering. Citing a blog that cites a press release that cites a study. The citation chain has to terminate at the primary source (the issuing body, court of record, peer-reviewed paper). Tier 2 / Tier 3 are explicit fallbacks, not the default.
• Undated claims. 'Verified' without a date is a permanent claim about a temporary fact. Statutes amend, cases overturn, data supersedes. Every claim's verification is dated to a specific day.
• Silent omission. Pretending an unverifiable claim doesn't exist. Reports list every claim — including the ones we couldn't verify, with ⓘ Unverifiable status. Honesty about scope is the trust mechanic.
• Methodology-by-vibes. 'We do extensive research' isn't a methodology — it's marketing. A methodology is a written, reproducible process that produces the same report from the same input regardless of who runs it.

In scope: verifiable factual claims in our articles — statutes, regulations, named cases, dollar amounts, statistical aggregates, standards, attributions. Anchored to clickable sources, marked with a status, dated to a specific verification day.

Out of scope:

• Professional advice. Articles state how the law / standard / data reads; the fact-check confirms the reading is accurate. Applying that reading to a specific reader's situation is the reader's call — or the call of a professional the reader retains.
• First-party claims. Any claim a publisher makes about its own product, service, or organization isn't independently verifiable from third-party sources. Articles either omit such claims, mark them clearly as first-party, or link to demonstrable behavior the reader can verify directly.
• Cadence guarantees. Reports get dated; readers decide whether the date is fresh enough for their use. We re-verify when a domain shifts, not on a calendar.
• Human-in-the-loop promises. The artifact is the verification. A reader can audit a report's honesty by clicking through. Promising human review at scale would either be dishonest or a scalability ceiling we won't accept.
• External certification. We adopt practices consistent with the IFCN Code of Principles (transparency of sources, methodology, and corrections) but we haven't applied for IFCN certification. The artifacts speak for themselves.