| name | final-editor-review |
| description | Adversarial pre-publication libel filter. Assume maximum liability. Kill-the-draft triggers: quid pro quo claims, motive attribution, unsecured verbs. Verification mapping (every financial assertion → primary source). Syntax conversion (definitive intention → observable contradiction). Publisher greenlight criteria. |
Final Editor Review Skill
Overview
Final Editor Review is the adversarial, legal-first gate before publication. This reviewer assumes maximum liability and asks the hardest question: "If we're wrong about this claim, can we defend it in court?"
This is not copy editing or fact-checking. This is libel prevention.
The final editor's job:
- Kill the draft if claims are not legally defensible (even if "probably true")
- Verify every financial assertion against primary source documents
- Convert editorializing verbs (intended, deliberately, designed) into observable facts
- Map each major claim to its source (and ensure source is really what we think it says)
- Flag "motive attribution" (attributing intent without explicit evidence)
- Enforce syntax standards (definitive statements require bulletproof evidence)
- Greenlight only articles that survive aggressive fact-checking
The Maximum Liability Posture
Assume the newsroom will be sued for defamation. Every claim must be defensible under scrutiny.
Jurisdiction Matters — Know Which Regime Applies
The elements below describe U.S. defamation doctrine, where the plaintiff generally must prove falsity and (for public figures) actual malice. This is not universal, and the differences cut against the publisher:
- UK / England & Wales, and much of the Commonwealth (Australia, etc.): the burden is effectively reversed — once a statement is shown to be defamatory, the defendant must prove it is substantially true. There is no broad public-figure actual-malice shield. The serious-harm threshold and public-interest defenses exist but are narrower than U.S. protections.
- "Libel tourism": a claimant may sue where the publication was read, not where it was written. A globally accessible article can be litigated under the least favorable applicable law.
Operating rule: default to the strictest plausible regime for the subject and audience, not the most permissive. When the subject, the outlet, or a meaningful share of readers sits outside the U.S., assume truth must be affirmatively provable — which is exactly what the publication rule and the Master File's graded evidence give you. When unsure, escalate to counsel (see Escalation to Legal).
Defamation Elements (U.S. — What Makes a Claim Vulnerable)
A statement is defamatory if:
- It makes a factual claim (not opinion; not hyperbole)
- About an identifiable person or entity
- The claim is false (or materially misleading)
- It was published (yes, your article is published)
- It caused reputational harm (it identifies wrongdoing or character flaw)
- The publisher knew or should have known it was false (negligence standard; higher bar for public figures)
Implication for newsrooms: Every factual claim must be verifiable, primary-sourced, and defensible — and under a truth-burden regime, provably true on documents you hold.
Kill-the-Draft Triggers
These phrases/claims are automatic red flags. If you see them, kill the draft or substantially rewrite.
Trigger 1: Quid Pro Quo Claims (Explicit Corruption)
Red-flag language:
"Accepted a bribe"
"In exchange for the contract"
"The mayor received $X to award the contract"
"Payment was conditional on the award"
"Kickback scheme"
"Corrupt exchange"
Why it's dangerous: These state a criminal conspiracy (quid pro quo corruption). They require:
- Explicit evidence of agreement (email, recording, witness)
- Proof of intent (not just coincidence)
- Direct causation (payment caused decision)
Safe rewrite:
Instead of: "The mayor received $5,000 from the vendor in exchange for the contract."
Write: "The vendor paid the mayor $5,000. Two months later, the mayor awarded a $100,000 contract to the vendor. No competitive bidding was conducted. The mayor did not disclose the payment."
Why this works: You've stated observable facts (payment, timing, award, non-disclosure). The reader infers quid pro quo without you asserting it. If challenged: "We reported facts; we didn't claim quid pro quo."
Trigger 2: Motive Attribution (Assuming Intent)
Red-flag language:
"To profit"
"Deliberately ignored"
"Intentionally bypassed"
"In order to benefit"
"Designed to hide"
"Meant to obstruct"
"To benefit his friend"
"For personal gain"
Why it's dangerous: Motive is internal state of mind. You can't prove what someone intended unless they said it or documents show it.
Safe rewrite:
Instead of: "The mayor deliberately ignored procurement rules to benefit her donor."
Write: "The mayor did not follow procurement rules. The vendor who received the contract is a campaign donor. The mayor did not disclose the donor relationship."
Why this works: Each clause is verifiable fact. The word "deliberately" requires proof of intent; remove it.
Exception: If someone explicitly stated intent:
Safe: "The mayor said in a meeting (per internal memo), 'I want to award this contract to ABC Corp because they've been loyal supporters.'"
This is safe because you're quoting intent, not inferring it.
Trigger 3: Editorializing Verbs (Judgment, Not Fact)
Red-flag verbs:
"Failed" (suggests obligation that may be contested)
"Neglected" (implies carelessness without proving it)
"Ignored" (implies deliberate action; hard to prove)
"Refused" (implies active rejection; was there actually a request?)
"Violated" (legal conclusion; unless law clearly breached)
"Disregarded" (implies knowledge + intentional action)
"Broke the law" (legal conclusion; let readers infer)
"Misappropriated" (legal term; implies crime)
Safe rewrites:
| Editorializing | Observable Fact |
|---|
| "Failed to disclose" | "Did not disclose" (or "Disclosure was not filed") |
| "Ignored the rule" | "Rule requires X. No evidence of X was found." |
| "Refused to investigate" | "Investigation was not conducted" (no proof of refusal) |
| "Violated the law" | "Law states X. Evidence shows Y (contradiction)." |
| "Negligently permitted" | "Permitted without conducting [required safety check]" |
Rule: Use past-tense verbs of action, not verbs of judgment.
- Action: "The city did not conduct competitive bidding."
- Judgment: "The city negligently failed to conduct bidding."
Trigger 4: Unsecured Financial Claims (No Paper Trail)
Red-flag claim:
"The vendor paid the official $50,000 in undisclosed money"
(Asserts a payment with no documentation)
Why it's dangerous: If you can't prove the payment, you're claiming a bribe. Defamatory.
Safe version (if payment is documented):
"A personal check for $50,000 was deposited in the official's account two weeks before the contract award. Bank records show the check came from the vendor. The official did not disclose this income in financial disclosures."
Safe version (if you don't have proof):
"The vendor and official have undisclosed financial relationships. [THEN: What evidence do you have?] Campaign finance records show $X; bank records show Y; vendor invoices mention Z. Despite requests, the official has not disclosed the full extent of the relationship."
Key: Never allege a specific payment without documentation. If you have documents, great. If you don't, say what you found (and didn't find).
Trigger 5: "Secret" or "Hidden" Claims (Without Evidence of Concealment)
Red-flag claim:
"Secret deal to give contract to friend"
(Implies concealment without proving someone tried to hide it)
Why it's dangerous: "Secret" implies intentional concealment. Prove the concealment.
Safe version:
"The contract award was not publicly announced until after it was signed. City procurement records show no competitive bidding process was initiated. Officials have not explained why the vendor was selected. Public documents do not contain decision-making rationale."
Verification Mapping
Every significant claim must map to a primary source. Create a verification table for the article:
Example Verification Map
| Claim | Primary Source | Confidence | Notes |
|---|
| "One vendor received 94% of contracts" | City procurement database, 2020–2024 contracts | HIGH | Exported data; counts confirmed independently |
| "Contracts totaled $5M" | City budget filings + contract spreadsheet | HIGH | Math checked by two people; no discrepancy |
| "No competitive bidding was conducted" | City council minutes + procurement records | HIGH | Procurement policy requires RFP (request for proposal); none found in records |
| "Vendor is campaign donor" | Campaign finance disclosure forms (state website) | HIGH | Official public records; indexed by name |
| "City procurement policy requires competitive bidding" | City code section 5.2.1 | HIGH | Obtain statute from city attorney; published 2018 |
| "Mayor said 'we trust this vendor'" | City council meeting transcript, June 15, 2022 | MEDIUM | Transcript is official; quote is accurate; context is clear |
| "Officials 'deliberately' bypassed rules" | Internal memo from procurement officer | MEDIUM | Memo says "decided not to solicit other bids"; intent inferred but reasonably defensible |
| "Vendor has 'ties' to City Council member" | Campaign donor records | MEDIUM | Same last name; no family relationship confirmed; could be coincidence |
Verification Confidence Levels
Use the shared Admiralty scale from ../investigative-journalist/evidence-grading.md — the same grade already recorded on each evidence item in the Master File. The legacy PRIMARY/SECONDARY/TERTIARY labels map as follows; convert, don't run a parallel scale:
| Legacy label | Admiralty grade | Acceptable for Publication? |
|---|
| PRIMARY | A1–A2 (certified/official primary record) | YES — satisfies the rule on its own |
| SECONDARY | B2–C2 (credible outlet, official statement, inference from documents) | Only if a second independent source raises it to corroborated |
| TERTIARY | C3 and below, D–F (hearsay, rumor, "allegedly") | NO — don't publish |
The publication rule (binding): a claim is greenlightable only when corroborated by two independent sources, or single-sourced to an A1/A2 official record. Two outlets repeating one wire story are one source. This is the same rule the research desk applied in claims[].publishable; your job is to confirm it held, not to relax it.
The Syntax Conversion Standard
Rule 1: Definitive Intent Requires Explicit Evidence
Risky: "The mayor deliberately awarded the contract to her donor."
Required evidence:
- Email where mayor says she wants to give contract to donor, OR
- Meeting minutes showing mayor advocated specifically for this vendor, OR
- Memo from procurement officer saying mayor instructed them to award to vendor
If evidence is not explicit: Convert to observable facts.
Rule 2: Absence of Evidence ≠ Evidence of Bad Intent
Risky: "No audit trail exists, suggesting records were destroyed."
Better: "No audit trail exists. The city's response to a FOIA request for decision-making documents was: 'Records do not exist or cannot be located.'"
(Readers infer cover-up; you just report facts.)
Rule 3: Timing Proximity ≠ Causation
Risky: "The vendor paid the official $X. Two months later, she awarded him the contract. This was clearly a bribe."
Better: "The vendor paid the official $X. Two months later, she awarded him the contract. She did not disclose the payment in her financial disclosures."
(Suspicious, yes. But you're not asserting causation you can't prove.)
Rule 4: Contradiction ≠ Lie
Risky: "The mayor lied when she said she followed procurement rules."
Better: "The mayor said: 'I follow all procurement rules.' City procurement records show no competitive bidding was conducted for this contract. City procurement rules (Section 5.2.1) require competitive bidding for contracts over $50,000."
(Contradiction is proven; "lied" requires proving she knew it was false.)
Banned Words/Phrases & Alternatives
Create a house policy on high-risk language. Example:
| Banned Phrase | Why Risky | Alternative |
|---|
| "Bribe," "Bribes" | Explicit criminal allegation; hard to prove; defamatory | "Undisclosed payment," "Payment without disclosure," "Quid pro quo (if provable)" |
| "Corruption," "Corrupt" | Legal conclusion; too vague | "Irregular spending," "Bypassed oversight," "Did not follow procedure" |
| "Lied," "Lie," "Liar" | Requires proving knowledge of falsity | "Contradicts documents," "Inaccurate statement," "Unsupported claim" |
| "Cover-up" | Implies intent to conceal; hard to prove | "Documents not disclosed," "Records unavailable," "Destroyed or withheld" |
| "Negligence," "Negligent" | Legal term; implies breach of duty | "Did not [required action]," "Omitted [required step]" |
| "Embezzlement," "Embezzled" | Explicit criminal allegation | "Misuse of funds," "Unexplained spending," "Unauthorized transfer" |
| "Conspiracy," "Conspire" | Requires proving agreement between parties | "Coordinated," "Multiple parties benefited," "Connected through campaign" |
The Final Editor's Checklist
Before marking article "approved for publication":
Fact Verification (40% of review time)
Libel Risk Assessment (40% of review time)
Source Verification (20% of review time)
Red Flags (Final Check)
Interview Sourcing Standards
When article relies on interviews:
| Type of Interview | Strength | Acceptable for Defamatory Claim? |
|---|
| Named source (on record) | High; most defensible | YES; we can defend source's credibility |
| Named source (on record) + document backup | Very High; bulletproof | YES; even better |
| Anonymous source (claimed insider) | Low; hard to defend | NO; avoid defamatory claims |
| Multiple corroborating sources | High; pattern confirms | YES; if all credible |
| Official response included (subject denies claim) | Medium; shows we're fair | YES; but readers see both sides |
Red flag: Article relies on single anonymous source for major allegation = kill the article (or rewrite without the allegation).
The Publisher Greenlight Criteria
The final editor decides: Can we defend this article if sued?
Greenlight Criteria (ALL must be true)
Greenlight Decision
Approve: "This article is legally defensible. All major claims are documented. We can win a defamation suit."
Conditional Approval: "Approve, but require [specific rewrites]."
Kill: "This article makes claims we cannot defend. Rewrite or kill."
Rewrite Requests (Not Rejection)
If final editor finds issues, request specific rewrites rather than killing the article:
Example Rewrite Request
Original sentence:
"The mayor deliberately awarded the contract to her campaign donor to enrich herself."
Issue: Motive attribution ("deliberately," "to enrich herself"); quid pro quo claim ("awarded...to her donor")
Rewrite request:
"Change to: 'The mayor awarded the contract to a major campaign donor. The vendor had contributed $10,000 to her campaign in the preceding year. No competitive bidding was conducted. The mayor did not disclose the donor relationship to the city council.'"
Why this works: Facts + timing + omission. Readers infer quid pro quo without you asserting it. Legally defensible.
Common Mistakes in Final Review
| Mistake | Result | Fix |
|---|
| Skipping interview source verification | Article quotes someone who never said it; or quote is out of context | Obtain recording/transcript of every quote; reporter must send you the source |
| Accepting "allegedly" or "reportedly" for facts | Weak sourcing; easy for opponent to challenge | Only "allegedly" for contested facts where we present both sides; factual claims need documentation |
| Not checking interview consent | Source later denies saying it; no recording; defamation risk | Confirm with source: "Can I quote you by name on this?" |
| Assuming public records are always true | Government document may be inaccurate; we repeat the error | Cross-verify government claims against other sources; don't assume records are factually accurate |
| Accepting secondary reporting as verification | News article says X; we cite the news article as source, not the original document | Always trace back to PRIMARY source; news outlet may have made an error |
| Not getting official response | Article makes specific allegation; official never had chance to respond; looks one-sided | Contact subject for response BEFORE publication; include response in article |
Kill-the-Draft Examples
Example 1: Unproven Quid Pro Quo
Draft claim: "The mayor received $50,000 from the vendor in exchange for the contract award."
Problem: No evidence of the exchange. Payment exists (maybe), decision exists, but no proof of causation or agreement.
Options:
- Kill the claim entirely (safer)
- Rewrite as facts without the "exchange" implication: "The vendor paid the mayor $50,000. Two months later, the mayor awarded a contract to the vendor. No other vendors were solicited. The payment was not disclosed."
Example 2: Unsecured Motive
Draft claim: "The mayor deliberately ignored procurement rules to benefit her friend."
Problem: We have no evidence of deliberateness or motive. We have evidence of non-compliance, but not intent.
Options:
- Kill "deliberately" and "to benefit her friend"; rewrite as: "The mayor did not follow procurement rules. The selected vendor employs the mayor's college roommate. The relationship was not disclosed to the council."
- Or kill the entire article if we can't prove anything but the selection.
Example 3: Unverifiable Anonymous Source
Draft claim: "A city official (who asked to remain anonymous) says the mayor pressured procurement staff to award the contract."
Problem: One anonymous source for a defamatory claim. Undefendable.
Options:
- Kill the claim (too risky)
- Report it as "allegations" with official response: "An official, speaking anonymously, says the mayor pressured staff. The mayor denies this, saying all decisions are merit-based."
Red Flags Requiring Editor Conversation
Before killing a draft, discuss with reporter:
- "We have a source who says..." but no document backing it up → Get the document or kill the claim
- "It's widely known that..." → Prove it with evidence, not generalities
- "The official refused to comment" → Why? Did we ask? How? Document the attempt.
- "Multiple sources confirm..." → How many? Are they credible? Can they be identified?
- "The absence of records suggests..." → Careful; absence ≠ proof of wrongdoing. Report absence as fact.
Escalation to Legal
If final editor is unsure, escalate to newsroom legal counsel (if available):
- Defamation risk is significant but ambiguous
- Article touches on possible criminal activity (bribery, fraud, etc.)
- Single source is the only evidence for major claim
- Public figures vs. private citizens (different legal standards)
Final Checklist Before Greenlight
Greenlight decision: Approved for publication, or Kill, or Conditional (with specific rewrites)
