How do we decide on what statements, claims or policies to fact check?

We follow a strict selection process to ensure our independence-ship from political identity. In doing so we are able to perform our actions without coming to close to bias and likewise, alienation of another on the political spectrum. The process goes as follows;

Public Interest & Risk Assessment:

• Stage One: By using a combination of public interest and our own public-risk assessment metrics, we categorise all statements, claims or policies on a neutral to medium, and severe scale. Should a topic fall between medium to severe, the statement would then advance to the next stage.

Severity Prioritisation:

• Stage Two: To ensure timely accountability, topics are prioritized based on urgency and their scale of severity. High-impact claims that directly affect the public are pushed to the front of the queue.

Master Ledger Check:

• Stage Three: Once a topic is green lit for investigation, we then measure the topics associated characteristics, such as political party or speaker, against our public Master Ledger of Investigations.

Proportional Balance Guardrail:

• Stage Four: To prevent systemic bias or the unfair targeting of any single group, no single political party or identity can account for more than 60% of our total completed investigations within a rolling period. If pursuing a new topic would push a group over this 60% threshold, the investigation is deferred back to Stage Two until the ledger is balanced by investigations into other parts of the political spectrum.

If all actions and stages are correct, the selective process is complete and the topics investigation and formal verification begins.