jamditis/fact-check-workflow

Fact-check workflow

Fact-checking is systematic, not intuitive. This skill provides structure for claim verification, evidence documentation, and rating decisions.

When to use

• Pre-publication fact-checking of articles
• Dedicated fact-check stories (rating claims)
• Verifying source statements during reporting
• Building fact-checking protocols for a newsroom
• Training staff on verification standards

The fact-check process

1. Identify claim → 2. Research claim → 3. Gather evidence →
4. Contact sources → 5. Rate/verify → 6. Document → 7. Publish/correct

Step 1: Claim extraction

What to check

Check:

• Factual assertions ("X happened," "Y is true")
• Statistics and numbers
• Dates and timelines
• Quotes and attributions
• Causal claims ("X caused Y")

Don't check (opinions):

• "This policy is good/bad"
• "We should do X"
• Predictions about the future
• Matters of taste or preference

Claim extraction template

## Claim log

**Article/Source:** [where the claim appeared]
**Date:** [when]

### Claim 1
**Statement:** [exact quote or paraphrase]
**Speaker:** [who said it]
**Context:** [surrounding context]
**Type:** [statistic/historical/quote/causal]
**Priority:** [high/medium/low based on importance to story]
**Status:** [pending/verified/false/unverifiable]

### Claim 2
[same structure]

Prioritizing claims

| Priority | Criteria | |----------|----------| | High | Central to the story's thesis, easily checkable, high consequence if wrong | | Medium | Supporting detail, takes more effort to verify | | Low | Peripheral detail, commonly accepted, minimal consequence |

Check high-priority claims first. Check all claims if time allows.

Step 2: Research the claim

Primary sources first

| Claim type | Primary sources | |------------|-----------------| | Statistics | Original study, government data, survey methodology | | Quotes | Audio/video recording, transcript, direct confirmation | | Historical | Contemporary news accounts, official records | | Scientific | Peer-reviewed research, expert consensus | | Legal | Court documents, official filings | | Financial | SEC filings, audited statements |

Secondary source evaluation

If you must use secondary sources:

• How close are they to the original?
• Do they cite their sources?
• Do multiple independent sources confirm?
• Is there any contradicting coverage?

Research documentation template

## Research for Claim: [brief description]

### Primary sources checked
| Source | What it says | Confirms/Contradicts |
|--------|--------------|---------------------|
| [source] | [finding] | [confirms/contradicts/partial] |

### Secondary sources checked
| Source | What it says | Reliability |
|--------|--------------|-------------|
| [source] | [finding] | [high/medium/low] |

### Gaps in evidence
- [What you couldn't find]
- [What you still need]

Step 3: Evidence gathering

Types of evidence

| Evidence type | Strength | Notes | |---------------|----------|-------| | Official documents | Strong | Court records, government reports, filings | | Primary data | Strong | Original datasets, your own analysis | | Expert consensus | Strong | Multiple independent experts agree | | On-record sources | Medium | Named source with direct knowledge | | Contemporary accounts | Medium | News coverage from the time | | Off-record sources | Weak | Use to guide reporting, not as evidence | | Social media posts | Weak | Can be deleted, context matters |

Evidence checklist

## Evidence for: [claim]

### Documentary evidence
- [ ] Government records
- [ ] Court documents
- [ ] Corporate filings
- [ ] Published research
- [ ] Official statements/press releases

### Human sources
- [ ] Direct witnesses
- [ ] Subject matter experts
- [ ] Involved parties (on record)
- [ ] Involved parties (for response)

### Data verification
- [ ] Original dataset obtained
- [ ] Methodology reviewed
- [ ] Calculations independently verified
- [ ] Sample size adequate

### Contradicting evidence
- [ ] Searched for conflicting sources
- [ ] Contradictions documented
- [ ] Discrepancies explained

Step 4: Contact sources

Right of response

Always contact:

• People/organizations being fact-checked
• Give specific claims you're checking
• Give reasonable deadline (24-48 hours minimum)
• Document their response (or non-response)

Source contact template

Subject: Request for comment - [Publication] fact-check

Dear [Name],

I'm a [title] at [publication] working on a fact-check of [context].

Specifically, I'm examining this claim:

"[Exact claim being checked]"

I want to give you the opportunity to provide any evidence supporting this claim, clarify the context, or offer any corrections.

My deadline is [date/time]. Please let me know if you need more time.

[Your name]
[Contact info]

Document responses

## Source response log

### [Source name]
**Contacted:** [date/time, method]
**Deadline given:** [date/time]
**Response received:** [date/time] / No response
**Summary:** [what they said]
**Evidence provided:** [any documentation]
**Direct quote for publication:** "[quote]"

Step 5: Rating the claim

Standard rating scales

Binary (for internal fact-checking):

• Verified
• False
• Unverifiable

Graduated (for fact-check articles):

| Rating | Criteria | |--------|----------| | True | Accurate and complete, nothing significant omitted | | Mostly true | Accurate but needs context or minor clarification | | Half true | Partially accurate but leaves out critical context | | Mostly false | Contains some truth but overall misleading | | False | Not accurate; contradicted by evidence | | Pants on fire | Not accurate AND ridiculous (use sparingly) |

Rating decision template

## Rating decision: [claim]

**Claim:** [exact statement]
**Speaker:** [who said it]
**Our rating:** [rating]

### Evidence supporting the claim
- [Evidence 1]
- [Evidence 2]

### Evidence contradicting the claim
- [Evidence 1]
- [Evidence 2]

### Key context missing from the claim
- [Context 1]
- [Context 2]

### Source response
[What they said when contacted]

### Reasoning
[Explain why this rating, not another]

### Confidence level
[High/Medium/Low and why]

Step 6: Documentation

The fact-check file

For every claim verified, maintain:

## Fact-check record

**Claim:** [exact statement]
**Source:** [who said it, where, when]
**Checked by:** [your name]
**Date checked:** [date]

### Verification
**Rating:** [rating]
**Primary evidence:** [list with links/locations]
**Supporting evidence:** [list]
**Contradicting evidence:** [if any]

### Sources contacted
- [Name]: [response summary]
- [Name]: [no response as of date]

### Notes
[Any additional context, caveats, future considerations]

### Files
- [List of saved documents, screenshots, etc.]

Archiving evidence

• Save screenshots with timestamps (URLs can change)
• Archive web pages (Wayback Machine, Archive.today)
• Download documents (don't just link)
• Keep original files separate from your analysis

Step 7: Corrections

When to correct

| Situation | Action | |-----------|--------| | Factual error | Correct immediately, note correction | | Missing context | Add context, may not need formal correction | | Updated information | Update, note "Updated: [date]" | | Source disputes characterization | Evaluate claim, correct if warranted |

Correction template

**Correction [date]:** An earlier version of this article stated [incorrect claim].
In fact, [correct information]. We regret the error.

Correction log

## Correction record

**Article:** [title/URL]
**Original publication:** [date]
**Error discovered:** [date]
**Error type:** [factual/context/attribution/etc.]

**Original text:**
[what was published]

**Corrected text:**
[what it now says]

**How discovered:**
[reader tip, internal review, source complaint, etc.]

**Correction published:** [date]
**Location:** [in article, separate correction page, both]

Pre-publication checklist

Before any story publishes:

## Pre-publication fact-check

**Article:** [title]
**Reporter:** [name]
**Editor:** [name]
**Fact-checker:** [name, if separate]
**Publish date:** [date]

### Claims verified
| Claim | Status | Evidence | Notes |
|-------|--------|----------|-------|
| [claim 1] | Verified | [source] | |
| [claim 2] | Verified | [source] | |

### Sources contacted for comment
| Source | Contacted | Response |
|--------|-----------|----------|
| [name] | [date] | [received/no response] |

### Numbers and statistics
- [ ] All statistics sourced
- [ ] Calculations independently verified
- [ ] Context provided (per capita, adjusted for inflation, etc.)

### Quotes
- [ ] All quotes verified against recording/transcript
- [ ] Attribution is accurate
- [ ] Context preserved

### Names and titles
- [ ] All names spelled correctly
- [ ] Titles current and accurate
- [ ] Affiliations verified

### Legal review (if applicable)
- [ ] Defamation risk assessed
- [ ] All claims supported by evidence
- [ ] Response from subjects documented

### Sign-off
**Reporter:** [name, date]
**Editor:** [name, date]
**Fact-checker:** [name, date]

Fact-check article structure

For dedicated fact-check stories:

# [Headline: Claim being checked]

**Claim:** [Exact claim in quotes]
**Source:** [Who said it, where, when]
**Our rating:** [Rating with visual indicator]

## What was said
[Context of the claim, full quote, circumstances]

## What the evidence shows
[Present evidence for and against]

## The verdict
[Explanation of rating decision]

## Sources
[List all sources with links]

---
*Published: [date] | Updated: [date if applicable]*

---

The goal is accuracy.