Fact-Checking Workflow
1. Overview
This workflow extracts every factual claim made in a supplied article, investigates each claim using publicly available information, and produces a clear verification result for each claim. The result shows whether the claim is true, false, partially true, or cannot be verified, together with supporting evidence and source references.
2. Business Value
-
Protects credibility – Ensures that published content is accurate, safeguarding the outlet’s reputation.
-
Reduces misinformation – Identifies and corrects false statements before they reach the audience.
-
Supports editorial decisions – Provides editors and journalists with concrete evidence to approve, amend, or reject story elements.
-
Enhances audience trust – Demonstrates a commitment to rigorous fact‑checking, increasing reader confidence and engagement.
3. Operational Context
-
When it runs:
-
Before an article is published or syndicated.
-
When a story contains statistics, quotes, or assertions that can be verified.
-
When a journalist or analyst needs to validate a piece of content for a report or briefing.
-
Who uses it:
-
Reporters drafting news stories.
-
Editors reviewing submissions.
-
Researchers preparing briefing documents.
-
How often:
-
As needed for each article that contains factual assertions.
-
Typically multiple times per day in fast‑moving newsrooms.
4. Inputs
| Name/Label | Type | Details Provided |
|---|
| Article Document | Text | The complete, legible text of the article that is to be fact‑checked. The text must contain selectable text (not just scanned images) so that the content can be extracted for analysis. |
5. Outputs
| Name/Label | Contents | Formatting Rules |
|---|
| Fact‑Check Findings | A list of each extracted claim together with: | |
| • Claim – the exact wording of the factual statement. | | |
| • Verification Status – one of True, False, Partially True, Unverified. | | |
| • Evidence Summary – a concise paragraph explaining the supporting or contradicting information. | | |
| • Sources – URLs of the most reliable sources consulted (up to three per claim). | | |
| • Notes – any special observations (e.g., ambiguous language, need for expert opinion). | Presented as a plain‑text table with column headings: Claim | Status |
| Summary Narrative | A brief paragraph (2‑3 sentences) that summarizes the overall reliability of the article, highlighting any major issues or confirming its general accuracy. | Written in a neutral, professional tone. No bullet points; plain sentences. |
6. Detailed Plan & Execution Steps
-
Read the article – Scan the content paragraph by paragraph.
-
Identify major factual claims – Record any statement that asserts a verifiable fact, such as numbers, dates, locations, quoted statements, or cause‑and‑effect assertions. Use the “Claim Extraction Guidelines” in Appendix C to decide what qualifies as a major claim.
-
Create a claim list – For each identified claim, write the exact wording in a working list.
-
Formulate a research query – For each claim, distill the core terms into a concise search phrase (e.g., “city council approved $5 million park renovation 2024”).
-
Conduct web research – Search the phrase using a standard web search engine. Review the first three to five results, prioritizing sources that meet the “Reputable Source Criteria” in Appendix C.
-
Evaluate the evidence – Determine whether the sources confirm, contradict, or are silent on the claim. Note the strength of each source (primary vs. secondary, date, authoritativeness).
-
Assign a verification status – Apply the definitions in Appendix C to label the claim as True, False, Partially True, or Unverified.
-
Summarize evidence – Write a 1‑2 sentence summary that captures the key supporting or refuting information.
-
Record sources – List up to three URLs that provide the strongest evidence, citing the source name and date.
-
Add any notes – Flag ambiguous language, conflicting evidence, or the need for expert input.
-
Repeat steps 5‑11 for every claim on the list.
-
Compile the Fact‑Check Findings table – Populate the columns with the claim, status, evidence summary, sources, and notes.
-
Write the Summary Narrative – Review the overall pattern of verification results and craft a concise paragraph that reflects the article’s general accuracy.
-
Perform final quality review – Verify that each claim has a status, evidence, and at least one source; ensure consistent formatting; correct any typographical errors.
-
Deliver the outputs – Provide the Fact‑Check Findings table and the Summary Narrative as the final deliverables.
7. Validation & Quality Checks
-
Source Presence: Every claim entry must list at least one source URL.
-
Source Reliability: Confirm each source appears on the “Reputable Source List” (Appendix C) or meets the evaluation checklist.
-
Status‑Evidence Alignment: The verification status must be justified by the evidence summary; e.g., a “True” label must be backed by at least one source that directly confirms the claim.
-
Claim Relevance: Ensure that only factual assertions are included; opinions, rhetorical questions, or unverifiable predictions are excluded and noted as “Opinion – not fact‑checked.”
-
Formatting Consistency: Check that the Fact‑Check Findings table has all required columns, correct headings, and no merged cells.
-
Spelling & Grammar: Proofread the Evidence Summaries, Notes, and Summary Narrative for clarity and correctness.
If any check fails, flag the specific claim for manual review and annotate the Notes field with the reason.
8. Special Rules / Edge Cases
-
Ambiguous Claims: If a claim can be interpreted in more than one way, note the ambiguity in the Notes column and assign “Partially True” or “Unverified” based on the weight of the evidence.
-
Future‑Oriented Claims: Statements about events that have not yet occurred (e.g., “The policy will reduce emissions by 20 % next year”) are treated as “Unverified” unless a credible forecast from an authoritative source exists.
-
Expert‑Only Topics: For highly technical or specialized subjects (e.g., advanced medical claims), if no lay‑accessible source is found, label the claim “Unverified” and flag it for specialist review.
-
Opinion Statements: Any sentence that expresses a viewpoint, value judgment, or editorial stance is excluded from the claim list. Record a brief note in the Summary Narrative indicating the proportion of opinion versus fact.
-
Insufficient Evidence After Reasonable Effort: After searching the top five results and applying the source criteria, if no reliable source is found, mark the claim “Unverified” and explain the search effort in the Notes.
9. Example
Input – Article Document (excerpt shown for illustration):
“The city council approved a $5 million budget for the downtown park renovation on March 1, 2024. According to the mayor, the new park will increase local property values by 15 %. A recent study by the University of State found that parks of this size reduce crime by 8 %.”
Output – Fact‑Check Findings
| Claim | Status | Evidence Summary | Sources | Notes |
|---|
| The city council approved a $5 million budget for the downtown park renovation on March 1, 2024. | True | The official minutes of the March 1, 2024 city council meeting list the approval of a $5 million allocation for the downtown park project. | 1. City Council Minutes – March 1, 2024 (city.gov/meeting‑minutes) 2. Press release – “Council Approves Park Funding” (city.gov/press‑release) | |
| The new park will increase local property values by 15 %. | Unverified | No authoritative real‑estate analysis or municipal study was found that projects a 15 % increase specific to this park. | 1. Real‑estate market report (generic) – not specific to the park | Claim appears in a mayoral quote; requires expert economic analysis. |
| Parks of this size reduce crime by 8 %. | Partially True | The University of State study reports an average 8 % crime reduction in neighborhoods with new parks of at least 2 acres, but the downtown park is planned to be 1.5 acres, slightly smaller than the study’s threshold. | 1. University of State – “Impact of Urban Parks on Crime Rates” (university.edu/park‑crime‑study) | Size mismatch leads to partial applicability. |
Output – Summary NarrativeThe article’s core factual claim about the council’s budget approval is accurate. The projected property‑value increase lacks verifiable evidence, and the crime‑reduction statistic is only partially supported due to differences in park size. Overall, the piece contains a mix of verified facts and unverified assertions.
Appendix A – FAQ
Q1: What counts as a “major claim”? A: Any statement that asserts a concrete fact that can be checked with external evidence—such as numbers, dates, locations, quotations, policies, or cause‑and‑effect relationships. Opinions, rhetorical questions, or vague generalities are excluded.
Q2: How many sources are required per claim? A: At least one source that meets the “Reputable Source” criteria. Up to three sources may be listed to provide a fuller evidence picture.
Q3: Can social‑media posts be used as sources? A: Only if the post originates from an official account (e.g., a verified government agency or a recognized organization). Otherwise, social media is considered a secondary source and should be supplemented with a primary source.
Q4: What if a claim references a future event? A: Future‑oriented claims are marked “Unverified” unless a credible forecast or official plan exists that explicitly predicts the outcome.
Q5: How should conflicting evidence be handled? A: Summarize the strongest evidence supporting each side, then assign “Partially True” if the claim is partially correct, or “Unverified” if the conflict cannot be resolved.
Q6: What if the article is longer than a typical newsroom deadline allows? A: Prioritize claims that have the greatest impact on public understanding (e.g., large monetary figures, health statements, policy changes). Document any omitted claims in the Notes column.
Q7: Are citations required to include access dates? A: Yes. When listing a source URL, include the date you accessed the information in parentheses.
Q8: How to handle non‑English sources? A: Translate the key evidence into English for the Evidence Summary, and note the original language in the Notes column.
Q9: Who should review the final Fact‑Check Report? A: An editor or senior journalist should perform a final sanity check before the article is published.
Appendix B – Glossary
-
Claim – A sentence or clause that states a verifiable fact (e.g., “The budget is $5 million”).
-
Fact‑Check – The process of confirming or refuting a claim using reliable external evidence.
-
Verification Status – The result of the fact‑check: True, False, Partially True, or Unverified.
-
Reputable Source – An outlet that consistently provides accurate, accountable information, such as government agencies, established news organizations, peer‑reviewed journals, or recognized research institutions.
-
Primary Source – Original material directly related to the claim (e.g., official documents, data sets, eyewitness statements).
-
Secondary Source – Analysis or reporting that interprets primary sources (e.g., news articles, commentary).
-
Partially True – The claim is correct in part but includes inaccuracies, over‑generalizations, or missing context.
-
Unverified – No reliable evidence could be found, or the claim is beyond the scope of available information.
-
Ambiguous Claim – A statement that can be reasonably interpreted in multiple ways, affecting verification.
Appendix C – Reference Materials
C.1 Verification Status Definitions
| Status | Meaning |
|---|
| True | The claim is fully supported by at least one primary source that directly confirms every element of the statement. |
| False | Reliable evidence directly contradicts the claim, showing it to be inaccurate in all essential aspects. |
| Partially True | The claim contains elements that are correct and elements that are incorrect, or the evidence supports the claim only under certain conditions or contexts. |
| Unverified | No trustworthy source could be located, or the claim pertains to future events, speculation, or highly specialized knowledge without accessible public data. |
C.2 Reputable Source List (examples)
-
Government & Official Agencies – e.g., U.S. Census Bureau, CDC, EPA, city council websites, official press releases.
-
Established News Organizations – e.g., The New York Times, BBC, Reuters, Associated Press, The Guardian.
-
Academic & Research Institutions – Peer‑reviewed journals, university research centers, think‑tanks with transparent methodology.
-
International Bodies – e.g., United Nations, World Health Organization, OECD.
-
Industry Regulators – e.g., SEC, FAA, FDA.
When in doubt, apply the Source Evaluation Checklist below.
C.3 Claim Extraction Guidelines
-
Look for numeric data – percentages, monetary amounts, dates, measurements.
-
Identify direct quotations – statements attributed to named individuals or organizations.
-
Spot cause‑and‑effect language – “because,” “leads to,” “results in.”
-
Notice absolute statements – words like “always,” “never,” “only,” “100 %.”
-
Exclude subjective language – words such as “good,” “bad,” “unfair,” “best,” unless they are part of a quoted claim.
-
Record the exact wording – do not paraphrase; the claim column must reflect the original sentence.
C.4 Source Evaluation Checklist
-
Authority – Is the source an official entity or recognized expert?
-
Accuracy – Does the source have a track record of factual reporting?
-
Currency – Is the information up‑to‑date relative to the claim’s date?
-
Objectivity – Does the source present information without overt bias?
-
Transparency – Are methods, data, or citations provided?
-
Accessibility – Is the full source content publicly available (no paywall or login required)?
Only sources that meet at least four of the six criteria should be used as primary evidence. If a source meets fewer than four, treat it as supplemental and seek additional corroboration.
C.5 Handling Ambiguity and Context
-
Clarify scope – Determine whether the claim applies universally or under specific conditions.
-
Document assumptions – If an interpretation is required, note the assumption in the Notes column.
-
Seek clarifying statements – Look for follow‑up sentences in the article that narrow the claim’s meaning.
C.6 Formatting Style Guide for Fact‑Check Findings
-
Tone: Neutral, factual, and professional; avoid emotive language.
-
Capitalization: Use sentence case for claim text; proper nouns retain standard capitalization.
-
Numbers: Write numbers as digits (e.g., “5 million”) unless they start a sentence.
-
Dates: Use “Month Day, Year” format (e.g., “March 1, 2024”).
-
Sources: List as “Source Name – Title (URL, accessed Date)”. Separate multiple sources with semicolons.
-
Notes: Keep brief; use brackets for optional clarifications (e.g., “[Ambiguous: unclear if ‘the park’ includes adjoining greenway]”).
C.7 Worked Example – Full Process (Expanded)
Article Excerpt:
“According to the Department of Education, 92 % of public schools adopted the new curriculum in the 2023‑24 school year. The new curriculum promises to improve math scores by an average of 12 points. However, a recent poll shows that 68 % of teachers feel the curriculum is too demanding.”
Fact‑Check Findings Table (illustrative):
| Claim | Status | Evidence Summary | Sources | Notes |
|---|
| 92 % of public schools adopted the new curriculum in the 2023‑24 school year. | True | The Department of Education’s annual implementation report lists a 92 % adoption rate for the 2023‑24 school year. | Department of Education – “Curriculum Adoption Report 2023‑24” (ed.gov/implementation‑report, accessed Aug 20 2025) | |
| The new curriculum promises to improve math scores by an average of 12 points. | Partially True | The curriculum’s pilot study projected a 12‑point gain, but the full‑scale rollout data (released Jan 2025) shows an average increase of 7 points to date. | 1. Curriculum Pilot Study (ed.gov/pilot‑study, accessed Aug 20 2025) 2. Full‑Scale Evaluation (ed.gov/evaluation‑2025, accessed Aug 20 2025) | Projection vs. actual results differ. |
| 68 % of teachers feel the curriculum is too demanding. | True | A nationally representative poll conducted by the Teachers’ Union in February 2025 reported that 68 % of respondents described the curriculum as overly demanding. | Teachers’ Union – “Curriculum Demand Survey” (teachersunion.org/survey‑2025, accessed Aug 20 2025) | |
**Summary Narrative:**The article accurately reports the high adoption rate of the new curriculum and the majority teacher sentiment regarding its difficulty. The claimed 12‑point math improvement is overstated; actual results show a 7‑point gain so far. Overall, the piece mixes verified facts with a partially inaccurate performance claim.
