Our fact-checking standard is to trace material claims to identifiable evidence before publication. Source links let readers examine what supports a report. Automated source checks do not establish that an independent human fact-checker reviewed every article.
What we check
Check names, dates, amounts, units, jurisdictions and the status of a development against original records when available. Read the underlying document rather than relying only on a headline, social post or search snippet. Identify when a source is an interested party, and attribute its statements.
Claims and uncertainty
Distinguish proposals from final rules, allegations from findings, and estimates from observed values. Do not turn a forecast into a promise. Hold an automated draft if its central claims cannot be supported. Label uncertainty and identify the date and scope of market observations.
Human review
Sensitive newsroom drafts require the recorded review described in our Editorial Guidelines. A human review credit applies only to the article version actually reviewed. Our organizational byline and AI disclosures do not imply an individual reporter witnessed an event.
Corrections and feedback
Use our corrections process to flag an error with an article URL and supporting evidence. Material factual corrections should be explained and dated without replacing the original publication date. This policy is an editorial standard, not a certification by an external fact-checking organization.