fact-check-workflow

name	fact-check-workflow
description	Structured workflow for fact-checking claims in journalism. Use when verifying statements for publication, rating claims for fact-check articles, or building pre-publication verification processes. Includes claim extraction, evidence gathering, rating scales, and correction protocols.

Fact-check workflow

Fact-checking is systematic, not intuitive. This skill provides structure for claim verification, evidence documentation, and rating decisions.

When to use

• Pre-publication fact-checking of articles
• Dedicated fact-check stories (rating claims)
• Verifying source statements during reporting
• Building fact-checking protocols for a newsroom
• Training staff on verification standards

The fact-check process

1. Identify claim → 2. Research claim → 3. Gather evidence →
4. Contact sources → 5. Rate/verify → 6. Document → 7. Publish/correct

Step 1: Claim extraction

What to check

Check:

• Factual assertions ("X happened," "Y is true")
• Statistics and numbers
• Dates and timelines
• Quotes and attributions
• Causal claims ("X caused Y")

Don't check (opinions):

• "This policy is good/bad"
• "We should do X"
• Predictions about the future
• Matters of taste or preference

Claim extraction template

## Claim log

**Article/Source:** [where the claim appeared]
**Date:** [when]

### Claim 1
**Statement:** [exact quote or paraphrase]
**Speaker:** [who said it]
**Context:** [surrounding context]
**Type:** [statistic/historical/quote/causal]
**Priority:** [high/medium/low based on importance to story]
**Status:** [pending/verified/false/unverifiable]

### Claim 2
[same structure]

Prioritizing claims

Priority	Criteria
High	Central to the story's thesis, easily checkable, high consequence if wrong
Medium	Supporting detail, takes more effort to verify
Low	Peripheral detail, commonly accepted, minimal consequence

Check high-priority claims first. Check all claims if time allows.

Step 2: Research the claim

Primary sources first

Claim type	Primary sources
Statistics	Original study, government data, survey methodology
Quotes	Audio/video recording, transcript, direct confirmation
Historical	Contemporary news accounts, official records
Scientific	Peer-reviewed research, expert consensus
Legal	Court documents, official filings
Financial	SEC filings, audited statements

Secondary source evaluation

If you must use secondary sources:

• How close are they to the original?
• Do they cite their sources?
• Do multiple independent sources confirm?
• Is there any contradicting coverage?

Research documentation template

## Research for Claim: [brief description]

### Primary sources checked
| Source | What it says | Confirms/Contradicts |
|--------|--------------|---------------------|
| [source] | [finding] | [confirms/contradicts/partial] |

### Secondary sources checked
| Source | What it says | Reliability |
|--------|--------------|-------------|
| [source] | [finding] | [high/medium/low] |

### Gaps in evidence
- [What you couldn't find]
- [What you still need]

Step 3: Evidence gathering

Types of evidence

Evidence type	Strength	Notes
Official documents	Strong	Court records, government reports, filings
Primary data	Strong	Original datasets, your own analysis
Expert consensus	Strong	Multiple independent experts agree
On-record sources	Medium	Named source with direct knowledge
Contemporary accounts	Medium	News coverage from the time
Off-record sources	Weak	Use to guide reporting, not as evidence
Social media posts	Weak	Can be deleted, context matters

Evidence checklist

## Evidence for: [claim]

### Documentary evidence
- [ ] Government records
- [ ] Court documents
- [ ] Corporate filings
- [ ] Published research
- [ ] Official statements/press releases

### Human sources
- [ ] Direct witnesses
- [ ] Subject matter experts
- [ ] Involved parties (on record)
- [ ] Involved parties (for response)

### Data verification
- [ ] Original dataset obtained
- [ ] Methodology reviewed
- [ ] Calculations independently verified
- [ ] Sample size adequate

### Contradicting evidence
- [ ] Searched for conflicting sources
- [ ] Contradictions documented
- [ ] Discrepancies explained

Step 4: Contact sources

Right of response

Always contact:

• People/organizations being fact-checked
• Give specific claims you're checking
• Give reasonable deadline (24-48 hours minimum)
• Document their response (or non-response)

Source contact template

Subject: Request for comment - [Publication] fact-check

Dear [Name],

I'm a [title] at [publication] working on a fact-check of [context].

Specifically, I'm examining this claim:

"[Exact claim being checked]"

I want to give you the opportunity to provide any evidence supporting this claim, clarify the context, or offer any corrections.

My deadline is [date/time]. Please let me know if you need more time.

[Your name]
[Contact info]

Document responses

## Source response log

### [Source name]
**Contacted:** [date/time, method]
**Deadline given:** [date/time]
**Response received:** [date/time] / No response
**Summary:** [what they said]
**Evidence provided:** [any documentation]
**Direct quote for publication:** "[quote]"

Step 5: Rating the claim

Standard rating scales

Binary (for internal fact-checking):

• Verified
• False
• Unverifiable

Graduated (for fact-check articles):

Rating	Criteria
True	Accurate and complete, nothing significant omitted
Mostly true	Accurate but needs context or minor clarification
Half true	Partially accurate but leaves out critical context
Mostly false	Contains some truth but overall misleading
False	Not accurate; contradicted by evidence
Pants on fire	Not accurate AND ridiculous (use sparingly)

Rating decision template

## Rating decision: [claim]

**Claim:** [exact statement]
**Speaker:** [who said it]
**Our rating:** [rating]

### Evidence supporting the claim
- [Evidence 1]
- [Evidence 2]

### Evidence contradicting the claim
- [Evidence 1]
- [Evidence 2]

### Key context missing from the claim
- [Context 1]
- [Context 2]

### Source response
[What they said when contacted]

### Reasoning
[Explain why this rating, not another]

### Confidence level
[High/Medium/Low and why]

Step 6: Documentation

The fact-check file

For every claim verified, maintain:

## Fact-check record

**Claim:** [exact statement]
**Source:** [who said it, where, when]
**Checked by:** [your name]
**Date checked:** [date]

### Verification
**Rating:** [rating]
**Primary evidence:** [list with links/locations]
**Supporting evidence:** [list]
**Contradicting evidence:** [if any]

### Sources contacted
- [Name]: [response summary]
- [Name]: [no response as of date]

### Notes
[Any additional context, caveats, future considerations]

### Files
- [List of saved documents, screenshots, etc.]

Archiving evidence

• Save screenshots with timestamps (URLs can change)
• Archive web pages (Wayback Machine, Archive.today)
• Download documents (don't just link)
• Keep original files separate from your analysis

Step 7: Corrections

When to correct

Situation	Action
Factual error	Correct immediately, note correction
Missing context	Add context, may not need formal correction
Updated information	Update, note "Updated: [date]"
Source disputes characterization	Evaluate claim, correct if warranted

Correction template

**Correction [date]:** An earlier version of this article stated [incorrect claim].
In fact, [correct information]. We regret the error.

Correction log

## Correction record

**Article:** [title/URL]
**Original publication:** [date]
**Error discovered:** [date]
**Error type:** [factual/context/attribution/etc.]

**Original text:**
[what was published]

**Corrected text:**
[what it now says]

**How discovered:**
[reader tip, internal review, source complaint, etc.]

**Correction published:** [date]
**Location:** [in article, separate correction page, both]

Pre-publication checklist

Before any story publishes:

## Pre-publication fact-check

**Article:** [title]
**Reporter:** [name]
**Editor:** [name]
**Fact-checker:** [name, if separate]
**Publish date:** [date]

### Claims verified
| Claim | Status | Evidence | Notes |
|-------|--------|----------|-------|
| [claim 1] | Verified | [source] | |
| [claim 2] | Verified | [source] | |

### Sources contacted for comment
| Source | Contacted | Response |
|--------|-----------|----------|
| [name] | [date] | [received/no response] |

### Numbers and statistics
- [ ] All statistics sourced
- [ ] Calculations independently verified
- [ ] Context provided (per capita, adjusted for inflation, etc.)

### Quotes
- [ ] All quotes verified against recording/transcript
- [ ] Attribution is accurate
- [ ] Context preserved

### Names and titles
- [ ] All names spelled correctly
- [ ] Titles current and accurate
- [ ] Affiliations verified

### Legal review (if applicable)
- [ ] Defamation risk assessed
- [ ] All claims supported by evidence
- [ ] Response from subjects documented

### Sign-off
**Reporter:** [name, date]
**Editor:** [name, date]
**Fact-checker:** [name, date]

Fact-check article structure

For dedicated fact-check stories:

# [Headline: Claim being checked]

**Claim:** [Exact claim in quotes]
**Source:** [Who said it, where, when]
**Our rating:** [Rating with visual indicator]

## What was said
[Context of the claim, full quote, circumstances]

## What the evidence shows
[Present evidence for and against]

## The verdict
[Explanation of rating decision]

## Sources
[List all sources with links]

---
*Published: [date] | Updated: [date if applicable]*

---

The goal is accuracy.