Evidence first.
Always.
Our approach to reporting, verification, and the public record.
Start with a question, not a conclusion.
Investigations begin with a question that can be tested against records. We distinguish documented facts, interpretations, and open questions. A name, affiliation, or relationship is not evidence of wrongdoing.
Make the source traceable.
Evidence entries identify their source and the location of an excerpt where available. We provide original or archived links when suitable for publication. The limits of a source belong in the reporting alongside its findings.
Say what we know—and what we do not.
Claims are labeled hypothesis, unverified, supported, confirmed, disputed, or false. These describe the state of verification, not a legal judgment. Supported means evidence favors a claim; confirmed requires corroboration. Conflicting evidence must remain visible.
Keep dates and connections in context.
Dates may be precise, approximate, or unknown. A timeline does not establish causation. Relationships describe documented connections with their relevant context; they do not infer coordinated intent.
Review before publication.
Research drafts, internal notes, and submitted leads are not public reporting. Records must pass editorial review before publication, including a review for sensitive personal information and appropriate opportunities to respond.
Correct the record.
Material corrections should identify the affected finding, explain the change, and state when it was made. Updated reporting should distinguish new information from corrections to prior errors.