Fact-Checking Policy

The promise of Cubed News is that a claim we publish is a claim a reader can rely on. Fact-checking is how we keep that promise. This policy describes how factual assertions are verified before they appear on the site, the standards of evidence we apply, and the checks every article must clear on its way to publication. It is the operational backbone of the first of our four rules — source every claim — set out in the editorial policy.

Fact-checking at Cubed News is not a single step bolted on at the end. It is woven through the editorial workflow, with a dedicated verification stage that a piece must pass before it can be queued for publication. The goal is plain: nothing that cannot be substantiated should reach a reader stated as fact.

What We Check

Verification applies to the factual load-bearing parts of a piece — the assertions a reader would take as established truth. In practice that means:

• Numbers and statistics — figures, percentages, financial and market data, and any quantitative claim.
• Dates and chronology — when events happened and in what order.
• Names, titles, and roles — that people, organisations, and their descriptions are accurate.
• Quotations and attributed positions — that words and stances are rendered accurately and not stripped of meaning by missing context.
• Study and report findings — that we describe what a piece of research actually found, including its scope and limits.
• Causal and comparative claims — that statements of cause, effect, “first”, “largest”, or “most” are supported by the evidence rather than asserted.

Where we describe a direction or magnitude rather than an exact figure — for instance, that a cost “has risen sharply in recent years” — we do so deliberately and honestly, because qualitative framing we can stand behind is better than a false precision we cannot. We do not invent a specific number to sound authoritative.

Our Hierarchy of Evidence

Not all sources are equal, and our verification reflects that. We work down a hierarchy, preferring the strongest evidence available:

• Primary sources — the original document, dataset, official record, peer-reviewed study, court filing, transcript, or first-hand account. This is the gold standard, and we go to it wherever possible.
• Authoritative institutions — recognised bodies with subject-matter authority and a track record of accuracy, such as national statistical agencies, major scientific organisations, and established standards bodies.
• Credible established reporting — high-quality journalism from outlets with rigorous editorial standards, used as corroboration and, where possible, traced back to its own primary basis.

We treat a single uncorroborated source with caution and seek a second, independent confirmation for significant or contested claims. We are especially wary of claims that circulate widely without a traceable origin, of figures whose provenance dissolves on inspection, and of sources with an evident stake in the version of events being checked.

How Verification Works in Practice

When a draft reaches the fact-checking stage, claims are checked against their sources rather than against the writer’s memory or general impression. A statistic is confirmed at its origin, not at the third blog that repeated it. A quotation is matched to the record. A study’s conclusion is read in the study, with attention to what it does and does not say. Where a claim concerns a contested or fast-moving matter, we note the date and state of knowledge so the piece remains honest as understanding evolves.

If a claim cannot be verified to our standard, one of three things happens: it is cut, it is rewritten to reflect only what can be supported, or — where it is central and unsupportable — the piece is held. An editor’s enthusiasm for a striking line never overrides the absence of evidence for it.

Sourcing and Transparency

We believe readers should be able to follow our work back to its foundations. Articles cite the institutions and sources behind their key claims, and where appropriate we link directly to authoritative primary material so readers can verify for themselves. Our anonymous-source practices — used sparingly and never to shield an unverified assertion — are governed by our sources and anonymity policy.

We also draw a clear line around the tools we use. AI assistance may support background research or surface material for checking, but no AI output is ever taken as a verified fact on its own, and the verification described here always rests on real sources confirmed by a human editor. That boundary is set out in full in our AI content policy.

Pre-Publish Checklist

Before an article is marked ready, an editor confirms that:

• every factual claim is traceable to an identified, credible source;
• numbers, dates, names, and quotations have been checked at their origin;
• research findings are described accurately, with scope and limitations intact;
• any unverifiable assertion has been cut or rewritten to what the evidence supports;
• significant critical claims about a person or organisation have been fairly put and reflected;
• the sources block lists genuine, relevant references a reader can consult.

When We Get It Wrong

No verification process is perfect, and we do not pretend ours is. When an error survives our checks and reaches readers, we correct it openly under our corrections policy — and we treat the lapse as a prompt to ask how the check failed. If you spot a factual error in our work, tell us at corrections@cubednews.com, or raise broader questions about our methods at editorial@cubednews.com. Rigorous fact-checking and prompt correction are two halves of the same commitment: that what you read here, you can trust.