Our standard
Factelle checks claims according to their significance, novelty, potential harm and likelihood of dispute. High-impact statements require stronger, more direct and more independent evidence than routine background details.
Evidence hierarchy
We prioritise original documents and datasets, direct interviews and observation, court or regulatory records, peer-reviewed research and recognised expert bodies. Reputable secondary reporting may support a claim when its sourcing is transparent and direct evidence is not reasonably available.
Core verification steps
Editors identify the precise factual claim; trace statistics and quotations to their source; check dates, definitions and surrounding context; compare independent accounts; examine whether an image or document is authentic; and record material uncertainty.
Experts and research
Relevant qualifications, institutional roles, methodology, sample size, limitations, funding and conflicts are considered when relying on experts or studies. A single preliminary study is not presented as settled consensus.
User-generated and visual material
Images, video, audio and social posts are assessed for provenance, date, location, editing and context. Reverse-image search, metadata, geolocation, direct confirmation or other appropriate checks may be used.
Anonymous or confidential sources
An editor must know the source’s identity, understand the reason for anonymity, assess motive and reliability, and seek corroboration. Anonymous attribution is described as specifically as safety permits.
After publication
New evidence may require an update, clarification, correction, editor’s note or retraction. Readers can challenge a claim at corrections@factelle.com by providing the article URL, disputed statement and supporting evidence.