Methodology

Our reporting is built to make the evidence visible and the limits of that evidence clear. We pursue consequential facts with aggressive curiosity and draw conclusions with restraint. These standards guide the work; they are not a claim of infallibility.

One standard, three products

The Dossier is deep primary-source reporting: a chronology, documentary evidence, competing explanations, response, what happened afterward and the questions the record cannot yet answer. The Brief isolates one extraordinary, substantially established finding and explains it without length the story does not need. The Ledger tracks verified consequences and unresolved outcomes after publication.

A Brief is short because the story is simple, not because the verification is.

A Brief and a Dossier pass the same evidence, fairness, response, current-status and publication-review gates. A promising Brief may become the first public record in a larger Dossier; the later reporting must independently verify every new claim.

The right to publish nothing

UNME does not publish to fill a quota. If the strongest available candidate is merely routine, weakly evidenced or already adequately understood, the correct editorial decision may be to publish nothing. Frequency never lowers the threshold.

Primary and secondary evidence

We prefer original records: judgments, audits, contracts, accounts, legislation, transcripts, regulatory filings, official correspondence and data. Secondary reporting can establish context and identify leads, but an important factual claim should be traced to the strongest available source. We link directly to records whenever access, privacy and safety permit.

Fact, inference and allegation

A fact is something the available evidence directly establishes. An inference is a conclusion drawn from established facts and should be identified as such. An allegation is a claim not independently established. Where the record is incomplete, we say what remains unresolved instead of filling the gap with certainty.

From findings to action

Every Dossier and Brief opens with a short findings digest and links to lawful, relevant ways readers can respond. These may include contacting elected representatives or the responsible public body, using an official petition process, attending a public meeting, making a submission, requesting records or contacting an oversight office. We verify those links and identify outside petitions or campaigns without endorsing them. We do not manufacture a call to action when no relevant process exists.

Anonymous sources

Anonymity is not granted merely for convenience. We consider whether a source faces a credible risk, whether the information has significant public value, and whether it can be independently corroborated. Readers should receive as much information as possible about why anonymity was necessary and how a source was positioned to know.

Requests for comment

People and organizations facing material criticism receive a fair opportunity to respond before publication whenever possible. We describe the substance of the questions, provide a reasonable deadline and accurately represent the response—including credible explanations that complicate our reporting.

Automation and human accountability

Software and AI-assisted tools may help discover sources, organize records, test claims, draft text and validate the website. Their output is never evidence. Material claims must be checked against cited records, consequential language must survive the same fairness review, and a named editor must approve every Dossier and Brief before publication.

Corrections and updates

We correct substantive factual errors promptly and append a note explaining what changed. Clarifications, new documents and later developments may be labelled as updates. Quietly changing the record is not an acceptable substitute for transparency.

Conflicts of interest

Writers and editors must disclose financial, political, personal or professional interests that could reasonably call their independence into question. A significant conflict may require recusal or publication of a disclosure.

Document preservation and source safety

Links disappear and public systems change. When lawful and appropriate, we retain working copies, record retrieval dates and provide archive links. Public transparency does not override legal restrictions, source safety, confidentiality or personal privacy. Sensitive working material is kept outside the public website repository.

Evidence labels

Confirmed means directly established by strong primary evidence. Supported means strongly supported but involving interpretation or an incomplete record. Alleged identifies a claim not independently established. Unresolved marks an important unanswered question or evidentiary gap.