Methodology

Every Power Lens story follows the same path: tip, verification, evidence, investigation, publication, correction. Nothing is published on impulse, and every step is documented. This page explains the rules behind each step.

Evidence Standards

Our rule: We publish a serious claim only when it is backed by evidence we can identify, assess and, where it is safe, show.

We rank evidence by how much weight it can carry.

Strongest: original documents such as official records, gazettes, contracts, court filings and financial disclosures, and data that we have checked ourselves.
Strong: first-hand testimony that is consistent with other evidence, and analysis by qualified experts.
Supporting: reports by other credible organisations and news media. We treat these as leads to be checked, and we attribute them.
Never enough alone: rumour, unverified social media posts, a single anonymous claim, or images and documents we cannot authenticate.

For a serious claim about a named person or organisation, we look for corroboration from at least two independent sources, or from one document we have authenticated.

Source Verification

Every source and every item of evidence goes through the same checks before we rely on it.

Origin. Where did this come from, and how did it reach us?
Authenticity. For documents, we check format, dates, signatures and whether the issuing office recognises it. For images and video, we check metadata, location and date, and search for earlier versions.
Corroboration. We look for independent confirmation in records, data or from other witnesses.
Reliability and motive. We ask what the source knows first-hand, what they stand to gain or lose, and whether they have been right before.
Record. We log each source and how it was checked, so that an editor can review the work.

If we cannot verify something, we do not publish it as fact. We may publish it as an unverified claim, clearly labelled, or not at all.

Anonymous Sources

Our rule: Anonymity is a last resort, and an anonymous claim alone never carries an allegation against a named person.

We grant anonymity only when all of these are true:

the information is important to the public,
it cannot reasonably be obtained on the record, and
the source faces a real risk of harm if identified.

An editor reviews every decision to grant anonymity. We know who our sources are, and we tell readers why a source is anonymous and how we checked their information. Any allegation against a named person that relies on an anonymous source must also be supported by documents or other independent evidence.

We store source information securely and keep only what we need. Read more in our source protection and whistleblower protection policies.

Allegations

Our rule: We never present an allegation as a fact, and we never present a fact as only an allegation.

Politicians, institutions and cases in our databases and stories are labelled so that readers can see exactly what is known, and how.

Evidence labels

Verified fact: confirmed by evidence we have checked and can point to.
Allegation: an accusation that has been made but not proven or tested by a court.
Court finding: a decision by a court or tribunal. We record the court and the date.
Claim: a statement by a person or organisation, including a denial, that we have not verified.

Fact-check ratings

True: the claim is accurate and nothing significant is missing.
Mostly true: accurate on the main point, with minor errors or missing context.
Misleading: contains some truth, but leaves out or twists context so that it gives a false impression.
False: the evidence shows the claim is wrong.
Unverified: we could not confirm or disprove the claim with the evidence available.

Our rules for allegations

We say who is making an allegation, and on what basis.
We include the response of the person or organisation accused.
We separate the stages. A complaint, an investigation, a charge and a conviction are not the same thing.
We record outcomes, including acquittals, withdrawn cases and dismissed complaints, and we keep the record up to date.
We use the presumption of innocence in our language until a court decides otherwise.

Right of Reply

Anyone we make a serious allegation against gets a fair chance to respond before we publish. Before we publish a serious allegation about a person or organisation, we:

Contact them in writing and explain what we intend to publish.
Share the substance of the allegations, and the evidence where it is safe to do so.
Give a reasonable deadline, which we state in our request.
Report the response fairly, in their own words where possible, alongside the allegation.
Record our attempts if there is no reply, and say so in the story.
Update the story if a response arrives later.

In rare cases, contacting the subject could put a source or another person at risk, or could lead to evidence being destroyed. A senior editor may then decide to publish without prior contact. The reasons are recorded, and we explain them in the story where we safely can.

Corrections

Our rule: Errors are corrected quickly and visibly. We never quietly change a published story to hide a mistake.

When we get something wrong, we mark the change at the top of the page with the date and a plain description of what was corrected. We use four types of notice:

Correction: a factual error has been fixed.
Clarification: the original was accurate but unclear or incomplete.
Update: new information has come to light after publication.
Retraction: the story could not be supported by the evidence and has been withdrawn, with the reasons given.

Every notice is also listed in our public corrections log. To report an error, contact us. If you are not satisfied with our response, see our complaints policy.

Conflicts of Interest

Everyone who works with Power Lens, including staff, contributors, board members and advisors, declares interests that could affect our work. These include financial, business, family, political and personal interests.

Declared interests are recorded and reviewed.
Anyone with a relevant interest does not work on, edit or approve the matter.
Where the connection matters to readers, we disclose it in the story.
Donors and partners have no say over what we investigate or publish, and we list our funders on our funding transparency page.

The full rules are in our conflict of interest policy and donor policy.

Political Independence

Our rule: Power Lens does not act for any party, government or candidate, and does not take money from them.

We apply the same methods to the government and the opposition, to the powerful and to those who challenge them. We do not endorse candidates or parties.

Anyone with a party role or a campaign role declares it and does not work on matters involving that party or candidate.
We test our own coverage for balance: who we have investigated, who we have not, and why.
We publish the evidence for our findings so that readers can judge them for themselves, whichever side they are on.

Read more in our editorial independence policy.

Data Methodology

Our databases are only as good as their sources and methods, so we document both.

Collect. We use official records such as gazettes, procurement portals, election results, parliamentary records, asset declarations and court records, plus Right to Information responses and public datasets. We archive the original with its source and the date we collected it.
Clean. We standardise names, dates, currencies and units, and we record every change we make.
Match. We link people, companies and contracts using written rules. When a match is uncertain, we flag it and do not assume.
Review. A second person checks the data and the analysis before anything is published.
Publish. Each dataset comes with notes on its sources, its date, its limitations and when it was last updated.
Fix. If you find an error, tell us. Data corrections follow our corrections policy.

We share open data wherever the law and safety allow. The full technical notes are on our data methodology page, and each database in Data carries its own notes.

Think we got something wrong?

Tell us. We check every report, and we publish our corrections. Contact us or read our corrections policy.