Source priority
- Government registries, regulator notices, legislation, court records and recognised app-store records.
- Platform terms, privacy information, signed app metadata and verified operator responses.
- Established reporting, security research and consumer-protection material.
- User complaints, social posts, chat messages, screenshots and testimonials as supporting evidence only.
Source record fields
Where useful, a source entry records the title, publisher, source type, publication or update date, access date and destination. Archived copies may be retained when lawful and necessary to show a later change.
Conflicting sources
When reliable sources disagree, the conflict is shown. The site does not select the most favourable version without explaining why it was preferred.
User-submitted material
A complaint or success story remains a user claim until supporting records can be checked. One submission cannot establish a platform-wide pattern.
Absence of evidence
Not finding a public record does not prove that a claim is false. It means the claim remains unverified or the evidence is insufficient.
Source removal and link changes
If a source disappears, the record is rechecked. A later archived copy may support what was visible at an earlier date, but it is labelled as historical rather than current.
Source hierarchy
Source type is considered alongside relevance, date, authenticity and independence. An official platform statement is primary evidence of what the platform claims, but it is not automatically independent proof that the claim is true.
Source records and access dates
Important references record the source title, publisher, type, publication or update date when available, access date and direct URL. Where a source changes frequently, the research notes may also preserve a lawful archived copy or screenshot. Archive availability does not remove the need to link to the current original when it exists.
User submissions and anonymous material
Submitted material is assessed for source, context, original format, privacy and corroboration. Anonymous information may justify additional research but normally receives lower evidential weight. A statement that many users made a claim is not a substitute for examining the underlying records.
Unlawfully obtained material, malware, stolen credentials or excessive personal data may be rejected without review or publication.
Broken links, changed records and removals
External references are rechecked when an article is materially updated. If a source disappears, the article should identify the problem, replace it with an equivalent primary source when possible or lower the evidence strength. A removed source is not silently treated as if it still supports the same conclusion.
Change history
| Date | Material change |
|---|---|
| Policy expanded to match the evidence-first publication standard. |