Source evaluation and verification

4.1 Two questions, asked separately

Every piece of information raises two separate questions:

• How reliable is the source? Its track record, whether it was in a position to know, and its reasons to get this right or wrong.
• How credible is the claim? Whether it fits with other information, whether it is plausible, and whether it can be checked.

Keep the two apart. A reliable source can be wrong on a given day, and a source you have never seen before can be right. If you grade a claim only by who said it, errors from good sources get through and true reports from new sources get thrown away.

Many organisations record both grades on a letter-and-number scale, often called the Admiralty system. The letter grades the source:

The number grades the information:

A report graded B2 comes from a usually reliable source and is probably true. A source you know nothing about is F, not E: you have no evidence either way, and "unknown" is not the same as "bad". "A" is rarely given, because very few sources are right every time.

4.2 Find the first appearance

Claims travel. By the time one reaches you it may have been copied, translated, cropped and summarised several times, and every step can add errors. Before you weigh a claim, trace it back:

1. Note who each version credits, and follow that credit.
2. Search for earlier versions using distinctive words, names, numbers or images from the claim.
3. Keep going until you reach a version that credits nobody else, or claims direct experience.
4. Record the chain in your research log, with an archived copy of each step.

Circular reporting is what you find when sources that look independent all lead back to one origin, or cite each other. Ten outlets repeating one anonymous post are one source, not ten.

Two sources are independent only if neither got the information from the other and they did not both get it from the same third source. Signs of copying include identical wording, the same typo, the same cropped image and the same mistake.

4.3 Misinformation, disinformation and satire

For verification, the first question is always whether the claim is true. Intent matters for how you describe it. Calling something disinformation is a claim about someone's intent, and that claim needs evidence of its own. If you cannot show intent, say "false" or "misleading".

4.4 Verify with at least two independent methods

Any single check can fail. Use at least two methods that would not fail in the same way, and record both in your log.

Accounts. Is it who it claims to be?

• Reach the official account from the organisation's own website rather than trusting a display name, a search result or a badge alone.
• Look at its history: when it was created, whether its past posts fit who it claims to be, and whether its name, language or topic changed suddenly.
• Compare what it says with what other sources say.

Documents. Is it genuine and current?

• Look for it at the source: does the issuing body publish it on its own website or in a public register?
• Compare it with known genuine examples: layout, reference numbers, and the names of office holders at the time.
• Check it for internal consistency: dates and days of the week, spellings, units and totals.

Images and video. Is it from when and where the claim says? Modules 6 and 7 go deeper.

• Search for earlier copies. Old footage recycled as new is one of the most common false claims.
• Check the details against the claimed time and place: season, weather, signs, landmarks.
• Treat tools that claim to detect synthetic media with caution. They can be wrong both ways, so weigh where the file came from more heavily than what a detector says.
• Remember module 3: some online tools keep what you upload.

4.5 Say how sure you are

Choose words that mean the same thing every time you use them. One widely used scale:

Likelihood is how probable you judge something to be. Confidence is how good your evidence and reasoning are: high, moderate or low. State both, and keep them separate: "The north gate will very likely close on Tuesday (moderate confidence: one reliable source, not yet independently confirmed)."

Words to avoid on their own:

• "could", "may" and "possibly", which fit any outcome and tell the reader nothing
• "confirmed", unless independent sources have actually confirmed it
• "definitely" and "100 percent", because open sources are never certain

SITREP's Community Guidelines ask the same of posts: say how you know, and say what you don't know. "Unconfirmed", "reports of" and "one source" are honest words. Module 8 shows how to carry them into a written brief.

4.6 A verification checklist

Before you rely on a claim:

1. I graded the source and the claim separately.
2. I traced the claim to its first appearance and recorded the chain.
3. The sources I count as support are independent of each other.
4. I checked whether it is satire, old material or taken out of context.
5. I used at least two independent verification methods.
6. My wording states likelihood and confidence, consistently.
7. I checked whether accounts are authentic without trying to identify the people behind them.

Next: Module 6: Social media and imagery analysis