Editorial Policy

How we choose claims

• Reach and potential impact of the claim.
• Relevance to civic life, elections, or public safety.
• Availability of verifiable, high-quality sources.

Evidence standards

We rely on primary documents, trusted statistical agencies, peer-reviewed research, and expert consensus where available. Anonymous sources or speculative commentary are used only when they cite documents we can independently verify.

Use of AI

Briefs are drafted, checked against their sources, and published by an automated pipeline under explicit editorial rules; they are not individually reviewed by a person before publication, and each brief says so. We publish a small number of briefs a day, only for stories with several independent sources, keep them short, and attribute every fact so readers can go to the original reporting.

Translations

Briefs are written and grounded in English. Translations into other languages are made automatically after a brief is published and are checked by machine for dropped or changed numbers, claims and names before they appear; a translation that fails those checks is not shown. Verdicts and sources always come from the English brief, which is the version of record.

Corrections & updates

When we make a mistake, we add a dated editor’s note to the brief or unpublish it. Every brief and report links to a correction request, and the corrections page explains what happens next. You can also email hello@citelink.news.

What we will not check

The verify tool is for public claims. We do not check claims about private individuals, and reports about them are removed on request.

Conflict of interest

Citelink does not sell verdict placement or accept paid influence over coverage. Partnerships are disclosed, and reviewers with conflicts recuse themselves from adjudicating those claims.