From claim
to record.
A practical sequence for moving from an assertion to sources, context, and a result that another person can inspect.
State the claim
Write the statement as plainly as possible. Preserve the original wording, context, and the time it was observed. If the input came from a post, capture the surrounding text instead of silently cleaning it up. A record is only as useful as the question it actually preserves.
Separate the questions
Distinguish what is being claimed: a date, number, quote, identity, cause, or image context. Nearby questions often need different evidence. A genuine photograph may still have a false date or caption; a statistic may need a definition before anyone can assess it.
Trace independent sources
Open the cited material. Check authorship, date, scope, and whether it actually bears on the wording in front of you. Prefer primary records when available, then transparent reporting and specialist context. Repetition is not independence: copied language across several pages is still one trail.
Inspect provenance and context
For images and synthetic media, examine both the file and the claim attached to it. Signed provenance can describe an assertion about creation or editing, but it does not establish that a depicted event is true. Missing credentials do not establish manipulation. Compare timing, place, earlier versions, and outside records when they are relevant.
Review the result
Treat a verdict as a useful signal, not proof by itself. Consider ambiguity, missing context, source quality, and what the evidence does not say. A careful result may be unresolved. That is preferable to forcing a conclusion when the available material cannot support one.
Preserve the trail
Keep the claim, reasoning, citations, and review date together so another person can retrace the decision or correct it later. Note meaningful edits and source changes. In high-stakes workflows, a second reviewer should be able to inspect the record without inheriting the first reviewer’s confidence.
A result should make judgment easier, not disappear.
Automated systems can shorten the path to relevant evidence. They can also be wrong when a claim is new, underspecified, or poorly sourced. This is why the method keeps people close to the sources.
Try a review in Prove