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-checking is systematic, not intuitive. This skill provides structure for claim verification, evidence documentation, and rating decisions.
1. Identify claim → 2. Research claim → 3. Gather evidence →
4. Contact sources → 5. Rate/verify → 6. Document → 7. Publish/correct
Check:
Don't check (opinions):
## 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]
| 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.
| 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 |
If you must use secondary sources:
## 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]
| 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 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
Always contact:
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]
## 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]"
Binary (for internal fact-checking):
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: [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]
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.]
| 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 [date]:** An earlier version of this article stated [incorrect claim].
In fact, [correct information]. We regret the error.
## 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]
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] | ✅ | [source] | |
| [claim 2] | ✅ | [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]
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]*
Fact-checking isn't about gotchas. It's about accuracy. The goal is truth, not points.