Evidence methodology

We distinguish the authenticity of a document, the existence of an event or program, the evidence for a particular claim and interpretation of that evidence. A government record can faithfully record an allegation without proving it.

Documented event or program

The narrowly stated event or program is documented. This does not validate every related allegation.

Documented proposal

The proposal exists. The label does not say it was approved or carried out.

Supported claim

Identified evidence supports the stated claim, with limitations explained.

Disputed interpretation

The evidence admits materially different interpretations.

Insufficient evidence

The available evidence does not establish the claim.

Contradicted claim

Identified reliable evidence contradicts the stated claim.

Dossiers identify source publishers, original links, relevant pages or sections, and what remains uncertain. Government records, judicial findings, academic studies and secondary interpretation have different roles. Source authenticity does not establish every assertion inside a document. Imagery includes context and rights information; illustrative imagery is not proof.

Burrows includes folklore, hypotheses and unsettled questions. The existence of a story or investigation does not establish the story’s truth. We do not assign numerical truth scores.

An allegation is distinct from a judicial finding. Appearance in a contact book, flight log, photograph or filing does not establish wrongdoing. We avoid unnecessary victim information and do not reconstruct redactions.

Editorial summaries use traceable sources and stated uncertainties. Automated drafting, if used, is not independent verification. Content can be corrected or withdrawn. Report a correction with the relevant evidence.