Why editorial teams switch to Infact
Verification that fits the deadline Most fact-checking tools assume you have hours per claim. Infact is designed around the 20-minute window between a wire alert and your first draft, so checks run in parallel with writing instead of blocking it.
Source scoring your team can actually defend Instead of a black-box algorithm, you get a transparent scoring model your editors can explain in a correction note or an ethics review. That matters when a reader asks why you trusted one outlet over another.
Dashboards that track what editors need Engagement metrics are useful only when they connect to the story. Infact links sentiment and performance data to specific claims and sources, so your planning meetings start with evidence, not guesses.
Adopted by teams that publish daily Newsrooms and independent creators use Infact to keep accuracy standards while scaling output across articles, video segments, and newsletters. The workflow templates come from real production cycles, not theory.
Founder toolkit
Rank every source against a transparent scoring model built around editorial standards, track record, and domain expertise. Your team gets a shared reference point before a story moves to production.
Follow each claim from initial research through final review, whether it appears in a daily article, a video segment, or a weekly newsletter. Status updates keep the whole desk aligned.
See how readers respond to specific topics and formats, then feed those signals back into your editorial calendar. Sentiment data helps you decide what to cover next and how to frame it.
Plan production cycles across daily articles, video segments, and newsletters without losing sight of verification deadlines. The calendar view shows capacity, dependencies, and review checkpoints in one place.
Access ready-made checklists, claim logs, and review forms designed for independent creators and small newsrooms. Professionalize your verification process without building everything from scratch.
Hands-on sessions that walk your team through source analysis, claim tracking, and audience sentiment workflows. Workshops are tailored to the formats you produce and the volume you handle.
Set up a source credibility framework and claim log in one session, then watch your editorial team move from manual checks to a repeatable review cycle.
No long onboarding. You bring one article or script from your current pipeline, and we map it against the scoring model, sentiment signals, and calendar slots you already use.
Book a workflow walkthroughA claim is considered verified only after it passes through at least two independent checks: a source credibility score above your newsroom's threshold and a cross-reference against at least one additional primary document. We do not treat a single reputable outlet as sufficient proof, and our dashboards mark the verification level so your editors can see the difference between confirmed, partially confirmed, and unverified items at a glance.
New outlets start with a neutral baseline score rather than a penalty. The score adjusts as we collect data on their correction history, citation practices, and whether their reporting is picked up by established wire services. For niche publications, we let you set custom weighting so that a specialized trade journal can rank higher than a general news site when your team covers that specific beat.
We track three signals: comment tone, social sharing patterns, and reader retention time on the article page. These are combined into a sentiment index that ranges from strongly negative to strongly positive. The index is topic-aware, so a critical reaction to a political story is not treated the same as a critical reaction to a product review. You can drill down to see which paragraphs triggered the strongest response.
No. The calendar works as a standalone layer that syncs with your existing production tools through CSV export or a simple API. You can keep using your current CMS, project management board, or even a shared spreadsheet. The calendar is designed to give you a verification-aware view of your pipeline, showing which upcoming pieces still need source checks or claim reviews before they move to the next stage.
Workshops are live, structured sessions where your team works through real examples from your own recent articles. The template library is a self-serve collection of checklists, scoring rubrics, and claim-log formats that you can adapt immediately. Workshops are recommended for teams that want to change their review culture; templates are better for teams that just need a faster way to document what they already do.
Our claim tracking module keeps a version history of every source you cite. If a source updates or retracts a statement, the system flags the affected articles in your dashboard and shows you the exact wording that changed. You decide whether to issue a correction, add an editor's note, or leave the article as is. The decision log is stored so your team can review how similar situations were handled in the past.
These definitions apply across all founder scenarios and are meant to remove ambiguity before you start. If your team operates with a different standard, we can adjust the thresholds during onboarding.