How We Investigate

A Record-Based Method for Verifying Public Claims

Page type: Methodology / Standards
Purpose: Explain how investigations are conducted, not what conclusions are reached.

Introduction

This project documents how public institutions function by examining official records, verifiable data, and documented processes.

Our goal is verification, not accusation.

We focus on systems, procedures, and outcomes over time, allowing readers to see what public records show — and what they do not.

Our Core Principle

We document systems, not individuals.
We examine records, not intentions.

This distinction defines our work.

We do not attempt to determine motive, guilt, or political alignment.
We document what is recorded, what is measured, and what is missing.

Scope and Limits of Our Investigations

This project does not:

  • Assign blame or intent
  • Make technical claims without documentation
  • Publish allegations without records
  • Act as a political campaign or advocacy platform

Our role ends at documented evidence.

Interpretation beyond the records is left to:

  • Readers
  • Institutions
  • Courts

This limitation is intentional and essential to our credibility.

What We Use as Evidence

We rely exclusively on sources that can be independently verified:

  • Official government documents and notifications
  • Election data published by authorities
  • Court judgments, orders, and affidavits
  • Parliamentary questions and official replies
  • RTI replies (filed by us or already in the public domain)
  • Archived reports, audits, and datasets

We do not rely on anonymous political claims, leaks without documents, or unverified material.

How We Verify Claims

Our investigations follow a consistent, transparent process:

  1. Identify a public claim
    (from speeches, press conferences, official statements, or public debate)
  2. Collect relevant official records
    that directly relate to the claim
  3. Compare data across time or jurisdictions
    (year-to-year, phase-to-phase, or constituency-to-constituency)
  4. Identify gaps, delays, or contradictions
    within the records themselves
  5. Publish findings with clear citations
    showing both evidence and limitations
  6. State clearly what cannot be verified
    when records are unavailable or not maintained
Why Missing Data Matters

When data is not collected, not published, or not maintained, that absence is itself a finding.

Missing data:

  • Limits public verification
  • Weakens institutional accountability
  • Indicates system design choices

We treat data gaps as documented outcomes, not reporting failures.

How We Use RTI

The Right to Information framework is used to obtain existing records or confirm whether records are maintained.

RTI is used to:

  • Request documented information
  • Clarify enforcement or monitoring processes
  • Establish whether data exists at all

We do not speculate about RTI outcomes before replies are received.

If RTI replies are already publicly available, we analyse them without filing new requests.

Corrections, Updates, and Revisions

Accuracy matters more than speed.

  • Factual errors are corrected transparently
  • Corrections are clearly noted
  • New documents may update earlier findings
  • Articles may be revised as better data becomes available

This is a living documentation process, not a one-time publication.

Independence and Non-Profit Nature

This is an independent, non-profit, public-interest project.

  • We are not funded by political parties
  • We do not accept payment for coverage
  • We do not publish sponsored political content

Our only obligation is to verifiable records and public understanding.

How Others Can Contribute

People with experience in:

  • Law
  • Data analysis
  • Public records
  • Archival research

may contact us to assist with document review or verification.

Submissions must be document-based.
Opinions or allegations without records are not accepted.

Why This Method Exists

Public trust depends not on claims, but on process clarity.

Our role is not to decide outcomes, but to ensure that:

  • Claims are checked
  • Records are examined
  • Gaps are acknowledged
  • Evidence is preserved

That is how democratic scrutiny is meant to work.

Methodology Version: 1.0
Last Updated: December 2025