Fact-Checking Policy — How StateLeak Verifies Claims Before Publication

Verification as a Core Function

Fact-checking at StateLeak is not a final step before publication. It is embedded in the reporting process from the moment a story is assigned. Every factual claim — not just the prominent ones — is subject to the same standard of verification before it reaches our readers.

The volume of information circulating about state power, institutional secrecy, and global affairs makes this obligation more demanding, not less. Incorrect information published under a journalism banner causes harm. We treat that risk seriously.

Stage One: Source Assessment

Before a story progresses, the reliability of its sources is assessed. We evaluate: the source's direct access to the information they are providing, their track record of accuracy, whether their testimony is consistent with other available evidence, and whether any motive exists that might affect reliability.

A source's motivation for providing information does not automatically disqualify them — sources often have reasons for speaking. But motivation is a factor in how we weight their account.

Stage Two: Document Authentication

Where stories involve leaked or primary source documents, our team conducts technical and contextual authentication. Technical authentication may include metadata analysis, format verification, and comparison against known authentic examples of the document type. Contextual authentication involves assessing whether the document's content is consistent with known facts, timelines, and internal references.

We do not publish documents that fail our authentication standards, regardless of their apparent newsworthiness.

Stage Three: Cross-Referencing

Core factual claims are cross-referenced against at least one independent, authoritative source. Where possible, we seek multiple independent confirmations. Government records, academic publications, financial filings, official correspondence, and court documents are the standard reference points for cross-referencing factual claims.

Journalistic reports from other outlets are used as reference, not as primary verification. One news organisation's reporting does not verify another's.

Stage Four: Expert Review

For technical subject matter — intelligence methodology, financial instruments, legal procedures, military operations, scientific claims — StateLeak consults subject-matter experts before finalising reporting. Expert input is used to test our understanding, not to shape our editorial conclusions.

"According to [Expert in relevant field], the methodology described in these documents is consistent with known operational patterns from [relevant period or agency]." — [Placeholder for expert attribution]

Stage Five: Editorial Review

Every piece passes through at least one editorial review before publication. The reviewing editor checks factual claims against sourcing, assesses the clarity and accuracy of contextual framing, and flags anything that requires additional verification before sign-off.

Post-Publication Review

Fact-checking does not stop at publication. StateLeak monitors published content for reader-submitted corrections, emerging evidence, and new developments that may affect the accuracy of previously published reporting. Where post-publication review identifies an error, our Corrections & Retractions policy applies immediately.

What We Do Not Fact-Check

StateLeak does not offer fact-checking as a service to third parties. Our fact-checking resources are applied exclusively to our own published and in-progress journalism. We do not accept requests to validate or debunk content produced by other organisations.