Sources, uncertainty, legal status, and correction
Methodology
2IA evaluates what a source directly establishes, how independent it is, when it was published, what remains disputed, and how the assessment should change when stronger evidence or a legal disposition becomes available.
Publication information
Plain-language method
Start with what the source directly establishes
2IA does not treat repetition as corroboration, a participant statement as independent verification, an allegation as a finding, or an arrest as a conviction.
Identify the exact claim
Separate the event from identity, coordination, sponsorship, intent, reach, effect, legal status, and interpretation.
Trace the source origin
Prefer primary records and independently preserved evidence. Record who created the source, when, why, and how it was handled.
Test independence and corroboration
Several articles may still depend on one press release, one account, one image, or one filing.
Keep legal stages separate
Investigation, arrest, charge, indictment, plea, conviction, acquittal, dismissal, sentence, appeal, and final judgment are different records.
State uncertainty and limitations
Explain what is missing, what would change the assessment, and whether time-sensitive facts may have changed.
Correct the public record
Material errors should be fixed, significant changes documented, and updates distinguished from corrections and clarifications.
Confidence and claim labels
What the labels mean
Confirmed
Direct, reliable evidence supports the claim and material contradictions have been resolved or explained.
Corroborated
Multiple sufficiently independent sources support the same material point.
Inferred
The conclusion follows from evidence and reasoning but is not directly established by a source.
Disputed
Credible sources materially disagree, and the disagreement remains unresolved.
Unknown
The available evidence does not support a responsible conclusion.
Public claim or allegation
A named source asserted it. The label does not mean 2IA independently verified it.
Court finding or legal disposition
A court record establishes a procedural or legal result; the precise stage and jurisdiction must be named.
Current-article credibility standard
Make the timeline, authority, evidence, and uncertainty checkable
A credible current report should let a reader reconstruct what happened without relying on tone, institutional prestige, or repetition.
Use exact dates and jurisdictions
Name the event date, publication date, court or agency, city and country, and the authority responsible for each procedural step. Avoid vague phrases such as “recently” when a public date exists.
Lead with primary records
Link the official statement, filing, order, policy, dataset, transcript, or source artifact whenever it is public. Explain what the record establishes and what it does not.
Triangulate independently
Use independent reporting from more than one publisher when the primary record is incomplete. Several outlets repeating one press release are one source chain, not independent corroboration.
Attribute quotations and claims
Quote only the words needed, identify the speaker and institution, and separate an official assurance, allegation, forecast, or strategic message from an independently verified fact.
Separate fact, context, and inference
Present the directly observed record first, then historical or institutional context, then clearly labeled analytical inference. Never allow demographic detail or geopolitical context to substitute for evidence of responsibility.
Publish the gaps and update path
State what remains unknown, which documents would change the assessment, whether the matter is active, and how later corrections, dismissals, withdrawals, or legal dispositions will be reflected.
AI can assist review, but it is not evidence
AI may help summarize, compare, cluster, or draft. A human editor remains responsible for checking the source, context, quotation, legal stage, privacy impact, and final claim.
Review the correction standard