How we fact-check our research

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

1. 1

   Research pieces ship with their fact-check

   Every published research piece gets a per-piece report at /research/<slug>/fact-check.

2. 2

   Readers verify by clicking primary sources

   Every claim has at least one Tier-1 source URL. A reader who wants to know 'is this still the law?' clicks through to the issuing body — 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.

4. 4

   We re-check what's flagged

   And update the research + report, advancing the verification date. Downstream articles, quick-reads, and tools that draw on this research inherit the corrected source authority.

It is: a reproducible, dated, source-anchored check that each verifiable claim in a research piece holds up against Tier-1 primary sources at the time of verification.

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

Each verifiable claim is categorized under one of these. Research leans heavily toward the statutory, regulatory, and legal-precedent rows — the primary-source-anchored claim types.

These appear in research 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 the strictest meal-break rules” is interpretive.
• Synthesis claims — “the doctrinal trend is toward employee-favorable interpretation” is analysis, not a sourced fact.
• Hypotheticals — “if a court were to consider...” is counterfactual.
• Recommendations — “the safest practice is to standardize to California's rules” is guidance.

For high-stakes claims — major dollar amounts, court holdings, statistical aggregates that anchor the research'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-piece, per-methodology.
5. Mark issues. ✗ Issue means the research 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 piece 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 research'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.
• 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).
• 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.
• 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 research pieces — statutes, regulations, named cases, agency interpretations, dollar amounts, statistical aggregates, standards. Anchored to clickable Tier-1 sources, marked with a status, dated to a specific verification day.

Out of scope:

• Professional advice. Research states how the law / standard / data reads; the fact-check confirms the reading is accurate. Applying that reading to a specific situation is the reader's call — or the call of a professional the reader retains.
• Downstream products. Articles, quick-reads, and tools that draw on this research have their own fact-checks. The research-side report covers the primary-source claims; the downstream artifacts have their own translation- or calibration-fidelity checks.
• 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.