Read the claim.
Inspect the evidence.

Reading the evidence

1. Separate the kinds of claim

   A charging document contains allegations. A settlement has specific terms. A study has a research design and measured outcomes. The articles identify these distinctions and attribute conclusions to the source that supports them.

2. Go to the source

   Links appear beside consequential claims. Source notes identify relevant pages, paragraphs or sections, along with the scope of the review and important limitations.

3. Keep the date in view

   The opening articles use historical cases. They do not claim that an earlier operation remains active, that an old benchmark describes today’s tools, or that a historical announcement establishes a current court outcome.

4. Match the finding to the work

   The transcript pilot searched a specified window of a particular dataset. Its negative result is limited to the contexts retrieved and reviewed. It does not establish the absence of material elsewhere.

5. Know what was and was not done

   The research note identifies the pilot as assistant-assisted. No original interviews, private communications or independent audio/video verification are claimed.

Corrections & updates

The broader verification and corrections policy is still being developed. The proposed checklist described in the research note has not been adopted as a public commitment.

For source suggestions and factual correction requests, email research@contralume.com. Include the article link, the passage concerned, and any supporting evidence. Source-review dates remain visible in the articles so readers can distinguish the historical record from later developments.

The method in practice

The transcript pilot preserves its selection window, search expressions, factual locators and unresolved limits. The companion page makes those details available alongside its claim-by-claim evidence record.