Methodology
Investigative work without a newsroom needs a method. Here's ours.
The Pipeline
Every piece passes through four stages before publication.
- 01
Research
The research stage. It generates hypotheses, identifies connections, and surfaces questions worth chasing. Its job is to ask, not to assert — nothing leaves this stage as a finding, and nothing published rests on it alone. Where a reading of this kind appears on the site, it runs under 'Questions We Should Be Asking' and is labelled as such.
- 02
Verification
Every claim gets graded on a five-tier scale. FACT requires court records, sworn testimony, SEC filings, or signed documents. PROBABLY TRUE requires multiple independent reports plus corroborating documents. SOME SMOKE is a tracked pattern that has not yet cleared either bar. PURE SPECULATION is an intuitive reading without evidentiary support yet, tracked openly so it can develop or dissolve in public. FALSE OR MISLEADING is a claim in circulation that the primary-source record contradicts.
- 03
Right of Response
An open channel for anyone named on the site to object, correct the record, or add context. Every investigation carries a Standing Invitation section and a working reply address. Responses are published verbatim alongside the original claim.
- 04
Pre-publish legal review
An eight-item checklist is archived with every piece: sources captured, grades assigned, forbidden words audited, standing invitation present, signed off.
Evidence Grading
Five grades. Used on every claim. Visible on every page.
Court records, sworn testimony, SEC filings, signed documents, or on-record admissions.
Multiple independent reports plus corroborating documents, but no admission or court finding.
Pattern, association, or unexplained payment we are tracking but have not graded higher.
Intuitive reading without evidentiary support yet. Tracked openly so it can develop into a graded claim or dissolve in public.
A claim in circulation that the primary-source record contradicts. Tracked here so the correction is as findable as the original claim.
Legal Discipline
We name powerful people. That means we have to do it right. Our standards aren't just ethical, they're also our defense.
The defense, plainly
Under New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), public figures must prove actual malice, knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, to win a defamation suit. Our evidence-grading system is the documented opposite of reckless disregard. We say what we know, we cite what we know, and we mark what we don't know as not knowing it.
Forbidden words
We do not call anyone a criminal, crook, fraudster, embezzler, or pedophile without a documented predicate, a charge, conviction, sworn testimony, or admission. Convicted parties (Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein on his 2008 plea) are described accurately. Everyone else is described by what the documents actually show.
Naming rules
- Public officials, executives, and the donor class are named freely when documents support it.
- Spouses are named only when materially involved in the conduct documented.
- Minor children are never named. Ever.
- Victims are named only when they have publicly self-identified.
Corrections
We will get things wrong. When we do, we run a public correction with the same prominence as the original piece, and a dated change-log lives at the bottom of every page.
Send corrections through the Contact page. Include the URL, the specific claim, and the document that contradicts us.