The service modules below map to the stages of a typical production cycle, from initial source review to post-publication audience analysis.
A structured framework for ranking the sources your team cites most often. Each source gets a transparent score based on editorial standards, correction history, and domain expertise. Editors can apply the same rubric across beats, so decisions stay consistent whether the story is about local politics or scientific research.
A shared log where every claim in an article, video script, or newsletter draft gets a status: unverified, in progress, confirmed, or disputed. Review checkpoints sit between drafting and publication, so nothing ships without a clear verification trail. Recurring claims stay searchable, which cuts down on repeated research.
Dashboards that pull engagement metrics for every published piece, broken down by channel and format. Editors can see which topics hold reader attention, which headlines underperform, and where drop-off happens. The data feeds back into the editorial calendar, so planning decisions are based on actual reader behavior rather than guesswork.
Quantitative sentiment scores paired with qualitative reader feedback, organized by topic and format. The goal is to understand not just whether readers engage, but how they react to coverage. These insights help editors adjust tone, framing, and story selection without compromising accuracy standards.
A planning layer that connects story ideas, assigned writers, verification tasks, and publication slots across daily articles, video segments, and newsletters. The calendar highlights capacity gaps and flagging deadlines, so small teams can scale output without losing oversight of the production pipeline.
Hands-on workshops covering verification workflows, source evaluation, and claim documentation, built for teams that want to professionalize their process. The template library includes checklists, review forms, and editorial briefs that can be adapted to a specific newsroom structure. See how the training modules are structured.
Straight answers about how content verification fits into daily production, without the jargon.
Each source gets a score based on editorial standards, correction history, and domain expertise. Your team sets the weights, so a science desk can prioritize peer-reviewed research while a politics desk weighs institutional track record differently. Scores update automatically when a source publishes corrections or faces sanctions.
Yes. The claim log is format-agnostic. You tag each claim with the format it appeared in, assign a verification status, and link related claims across episodes or issues. This way, a claim that resurfaces in a newsletter three weeks after a video segment carries its full verification history with it.
Most teams are up and running within two to three days. The calendar integrates with your existing production cycle, so you map your current stages — assignment, drafting, review, publication — and the system suggests checkpoints for verification at each step. No need to restructure your whole workflow.
Standard metrics tell you what got clicks. Sentiment analysis tells you whether readers found the coverage fair, confusing, or misleading. That distinction matters when you are deciding whether to double down on a topic or adjust your framing. The data comes from comments, social mentions, and reader feedback forms.
Yes. We run half-day and full-day workshops that walk your editors through verification checklists, source evaluation exercises, and claim documentation practices. You also get access to a template library with ready-to-use logs, scoring sheets, and review forms tailored to newsroom production.
When a correction is issued, the system flags every article, segment, or newsletter that referenced the affected claim. Your team reviews each instance, updates the text, and logs the correction for transparency. The audit trail stays visible so readers and internal stakeholders can see what changed and why.
From the moment a draft lands on your desk to the final publish check, each step is built around a clear handoff. No guesswork, no lost context between editors.
Your editor drops the article, video script, or newsletter copy into the queue. The system logs the format, the claims it contains, and the sources cited so nothing slips through the review.
Each citation gets a credibility score based on editorial standards, track record, and domain expertise. Low-scoring sources are flagged for a second look before the text moves forward.
Every factual statement is logged in a shared claim register. Your team assigns a status - verified, needs evidence, or disputed - and the system keeps the history for future reference.
Audience reaction data from previous pieces is pulled alongside the current draft. This shows whether the tone and framing match what your readers expect from the topic.
The final check runs through the full verification log. Once the editor signs off, the piece moves to the publishing queue with the complete audit trail attached.
Choose the setup that matches your production cycle. Each option includes access to the verification toolkit, editorial calendar templates, and a shared claim log. No long-term commitment required.
For independent creators and small newsletters. Includes source credibility scoring, a basic claim tracker, and weekly sentiment summaries. Setup takes about two hours, and our team walks you through the first verification workflow.
See how it worksBuilt for teams producing daily articles and video segments. Adds real-time content performance dashboards, collaborative review checkpoints, and a shared editorial calendar. We help you map your existing production steps into the system.
Explore use casesA structured program for editorial teams that want to professionalize their fact-checking process. Covers source analysis, claim tracking, and audience sentiment interpretation. Includes template libraries and follow-up support for your first month.
Book a session