Show the work. Leave room for correction.

A critical voice, a checkable record

Unprotest examines claims from opposition parties, campaign groups and foreign-media reporting for a general readership. Selection reflects an editorial interest; it is not a representative survey of all political speech. A government response is examined with the same care as the allegation it disputes. Agreement with our politics is not a publication criterion.

We separate the precise factual proposition from the speaker’s identity and the wider political programme. A correction to one number is not a verdict on an organisation. Neither is an organisation’s reputation evidence that a particular statement is true.

Three formats, different questions

Satire, predictions and statements of values are labelled as such. A testable factual premise embedded in them can be examined separately. A prediction does not become a lie simply because events later turn out differently.

What the findings mean

A finding always travels with a written explanation. Readers should inspect that explanation before sharing a badge. The verdict belongs to an individual claim, not a person, party, newspaper, religion or movement.

Inspect the original and locate the passage

Start with the complete statement, legislation, judgment, parliamentary answer, audit or dataset. Record the publisher, title, stable source ID, original URL, publication date when established, access date and relevant page or passage. An access date does not establish when an undated webpage was first written.

An official source is primary evidence of what an institution said or decided; its status does not automatically settle disputed facts. A party’s presentation establishes its allegation. A judgment’s recital of a party’s argument is not the court’s conclusion. Check who is speaking at each passage.

When an official document is unavailable but a legal archive reproduces it, disclose that limitation and seek corroboration. If essential material still cannot be inspected, keep the dossier unpublished. Search snippets are discovery aids, not a publication foundation. Our source archive contains original editorial research notes and links, not wholesale copies of copyrighted reporting.

Quote sparingly. Preserve original-language wording when quoting it, label translations and explain any important ambiguity. Paraphrases are identified. We do not manufacture a quotation from a translation or reconstruct a speaker’s exact words from a headline.

Compare like with like

A worked example is explicitly illustrative. It teaches a method and must not be mistaken for a newly reported event, survey or finding.

Allegation, audit and judgment are different records

An allegation states what somebody believes or accuses. An audit observation assesses a defined administrative or financial record under an audit method. A court decides particular legal issues under applicable burdens of proof. Estimated opportunity costs, proven payments, licence cancellations and criminal guilt are not interchangeable.

An acquittal is the outcome of the criminal proceeding it resolves, subject to the actual appellate position. Granting leave to appeal allows further examination; it is not itself a conviction. Similarly, an interim direction and a final judgment must be dated and distinguished. Historical dossiers must examine subsequent proceedings rather than stop at the most politically convenient milestone.

A legal explainer is not individual legal advice. Local orders, amendments and commencement can change the applicable position. The article’s review scope should make clear whether it explains an original historical text or a current consolidated rule.

Responses and right of reply

Include relevant publicly available responses and make their provenance clear. If no direct contact occurred, say so. A general press release is not a reply obtained by our newsroom; silence is not an admission. Do not promise that a submission has been forwarded to a government or organisation when it has only entered our editorial queue.

Readers and subjects can use the existing submission process to provide a response, an original document or a correction. Publication remains subject to review. Do not submit identity documents, private voter details or unnecessary personal information.

Corrections remain visible

Each evidence record includes publication and correction history. A correction explains the original error, the change and whether the finding changed. An update adds later evidence without disguising the date of the original account. Minor formatting repairs need not pretend to be new research.

We record the actual review date and scope, not a cosmetic “updated today” timestamp. Files under research remain outside public routes, search results and the sitemap. Reopening a dossier requires inspecting the missing material and passing the same source and route checks as a new publication.