Evidence before authority
Institutional prestige is not proof. Experts and official bodies can provide data, methods and technical findings, but conclusions must remain traceable to evidence.
Editorial constitution
The rules below apply to every substantial investigation, regardless of topic, institution, ideology or speaker.
Institutional prestige is not proof. Experts and official bodies can provide data, methods and technical findings, but conclusions must remain traceable to evidence.
When the underlying paper, dataset, report, standard, court document or technical record is available, we link to it rather than relying only on commentary about it.
We distinguish measurements and documented facts from inference, interpretation, uncertainty and editorial conclusion.
We address the strongest serious version of a claim and the strongest meaningful evidence offered in its support.
Evidence statuses describe the record, not the intelligence or motives of people who believe a claim. We do not use certainty stronger than the evidence supports.
Material mistakes are corrected openly. We record what changed, when it changed and whether the correction altered the conclusion.
Advertising, sponsorships, memberships and other revenue sources must not determine which conclusion an investigation reaches. Material conflicts relevant to a claim must be disclosed.
AI may assist discovery, organization, comparison, drafting, coding and editing. AI output is never treated as evidence. Factual claims must be verified against underlying sources before publication.
Evidence language
Strong evidence supports the claim.
The core claim is supported, with meaningful qualifications.
Some underlying facts may be true, but the presentation creates a materially false impression.
Current evidence does not justify the claim.
Good evidence directly conflicts with the claim.
The available evidence is insufficient or materially conflicting.
The claim is framed so that no plausible observation could disconfirm it.