Methodology

Every factual claim on this site should trace back to a primary source we hold or can point to. This page explains how we build that chain and what to do when something is wrong.

Sources and receipts

We base our claims on primary sources — official documents, parliamentary transcripts, court records, academic papers, and published journalism. For each source we hold either a stable link or a local copy (our “receipt”). A source we cannot point to cannot ground a claim.

From each source we extract single verifiable facts, each pinned to a specific quote or page location in that source. A fact note says only what the document actually says — it makes no inference.

How claims reach a page

Published articles and hub pages are drafted from those fact notes. A published sentence without a clear path back to a primary source is either a marked gap (see below) or an error that should be corrected.

Where a page synthesises across multiple sources, inline citation markers — [1], [2], etc. — and a Further Reading section identify the specific on-site sources that ground each claim.

Marked gaps

Where our source vault does not yet hold a receipt for a claim, we use an explicit marker during drafting. A page with unresolved gap markers does not ship. The gap is either filled from a primary source, or the unsupported claim is removed before publication. There are no silent unknowns.

Corrections

If you believe something we published is wrong, contact the editorial team via our Contact page. We will investigate promptly. If the correction is upheld, we will amend the passage, note the correction inline, and retain the original wording in a correction block so the change is transparent.

Notice & takedown

For copyright and republication concerns, including requests to remove a republished article, see our Copyright Notice & Takedown page.