A reproducible fact-check template
Quick answer
Start a fact check by recording the exact claim, why you selected it, and the scope of the check. Preserve the source and state what primary evidence you expect to find. Log every source and transformation that matters, including evidence for and against the claim. Record timeline and identity assumptions, and explain what missing evidence can tell you. Show the reasoning for each part of the claim.
Define the verdict and record the reviewer decision and correction history. Another reader should be able to inspect the same evidence and reconstruct the judgment.
- Write the claim, scope, decision standard, source plan, and stop conditions before collecting evidence.
- Log stable source locations, versions, independence, transformations, limitations, and evidence on both sides of every material component.
- Publish a defined verdict and confidence with visible sources, review, limitations, appeal path, and correction history.
Topics: Fact-checking methodology · Evidence logs · Reproducible research · Corrections
A reproducible fact check lets another careful reader start from the same claim, open the same evidence, understand each transformation and judgment, and see why the verdict follows. Reproducibility does not require that every reader agree; it requires that hidden steps are not doing the work.
The template below is designed for web claims, images, quotations, accounts, records, and timelines. Copy it before research begins so the evidence log is created during the work rather than reconstructed afterward.
1. Claim card
Quote the claim exactly before paraphrasing it. Preserve material qualifiers such as “all,” “never,” “official,” “caused,” or “on Tuesday.” If a post mixes fact and opinion, identify only the factual components that public evidence can test.
Explain why the check matters. Reach, urgency, safety, and public consequence are legitimate selection factors. Disagreement with the speaker is not.
2. Preservation record
Keep screenshots in context and retain original downloads separately from crops, annotations, transcripts, or redactions. Verify that archived pages actually contain the relevant material. A hash can help detect later byte changes; it does not prove a file's author, date, or truth.
3. Source plan
Before collecting links, write what direct evidence should exist:
The best primary source is relative to the component. A recording can establish spoken words; a current regulation can establish operative text; a dataset and methodology can establish reported measurements. None automatically proves a broader interpretation.
4. Evidence log
Use one row for every item that materially changes the analysis:
Scroll horizontally to compare all columns
Do not count search-result snippets as evidence when the underlying page is available. Follow citations backward. Two articles using the same press release are one evidence chain, not independent corroboration.
The International Fact-Checking Network's standards require significant sources to be identified so readers can replicate the work, suitable primary sources to be used when available, and relevant evidence on both sides of the claim to be presented. Use that as the minimum discipline even when the result is not a formal newsroom fact check.
5. Source analysis
For each decisive item, answer:
Primary sources still require context. The Library of Congress recommends examining a source's creator, purpose, audience, perspective, and agreement or conflict with other sources. The Library of Congress analysis guide recommends observing details, testing interpretations, asking questions, and revisiting evidence through further investigation.
6. Identity, media, and timeline checks
Use only the modules the claim needs:
Never merge people on name alone or identify an unknown private person by face. Do not use password recovery, breached credentials, pretexting, private-account probes, or evasion of access controls.
7. Negative-evidence test
Do not jump from an empty result to “false.” A negative result has weight only when the expected signal would probably exist and the checked method could probably find it.
8. Analysis by component
Write the reasoning before choosing the headline verdict:
Keep observation and inference separate. “The archived page contains this sentence by 10 June” is an observation. “The author probably added it after criticism” is an inference requiring its own evidence.
Apply the same standard to evidence that favors and disfavors the claim. If a source has a relevant interest or relationship, disclose it; do not discard the evidence solely because the source has a perspective.
9. Verdict and confidence
Choose a label defined before the check:
Scroll horizontally to compare all columns
Then publish:
Avoid a false precision score. Confidence depends on source directness, independence, coverage, identity continuity, and the size of unresolved alternatives - not the number of links in the bibliography.
10. Publication and correction record
Make the sources and method visible enough that readers can reproduce the material steps. Explain any source detail withheld for safety. Invite specific corrections and preserve the earlier conclusion when a material update changes the verdict.
The IFCN calls for a visible, open corrections policy and transparent changes that reach readers of the original. A silent edit repairs text but not the evidence trail.
For capture mechanics, use how to preserve and document a web source. For deciding how to word a blank search result, read what “no evidence” means.
Sources and references
Verify Information
Reviewed by DeepSearch Research and Safety Team on August 14, 2026. Re-check trigger: Material fact-checking standards, provenance, preservation, or corrections-workflow changes
IFCN Code of Principles - The Commitments
International Fact-Checking Network
Replicable sourcing, suitable primary evidence, named corroboration, balanced methodology, source interests, and open corrections
Getting Started with Primary Sources
Library of Congress
Creator, purpose, audience, context, perspective, contradiction, and further-investigation questions
Teacher’s Guide: Analyzing Primary Sources (PDF)
Library of Congress
Observing source details, testing interpretations, asking questions, and comparing evidence through further investigation
FIPS 180-4: Secure Hash Standard
National Institute of Standards and Technology
The use of SHA-256 message digests to detect whether saved data changes after a digest is generated