Methodology
Event Corroboration
Every event on Ukraine Truth is assessed by a single confidence model: how many independent, reliable sources report the same event? Each event's confidence tier is determined by a weighted reliability algorithm. Every source in our registry has a reliability rating (high, medium, variable, or low). When multiple independent sources report the same event, their reliability weights are summed to produce a corroboration score. The result is the prominent confidence indicator shown on every event page, computed algorithmically and impossible to influence through any single source's framing.
Verified
Weighted score ≥ 3.0. Multiple high-reliability independent sources confirm the core facts. For example, if Kyiv Independent, Ukrinform, and Ukrainska Pravda all report the same event, it receives Verified status.
Likely
Weighted score ≥ 1.5. At least two independent sources agree on the core facts. High confidence but additional sources would further strengthen the assessment.
Contested
Reserved for manual editorial review when sources conflict on key details. This tier is not automatically detected by the pipeline and is currently unused in the corpus.
Uncorroborated
Single-source reporting with no independent corroboration. Most events (~92%) begin at this level and may be upgraded as additional sources are matched through our pipeline. We include these when the source is credible, but clearly label the uncertainty.
Debunked
Reserved for manual editorial review when trusted sources have contradicted the claim. This tier is not automatically detected by the pipeline and is currently unused in the corpus.
Reliability Weights
High = 1.0, Medium = 0.5, Variable = 0.3, Low = 0.0. State-controlled media (e.g. TASS, RT) always contribute zero weight regardless of reliability rating.
Structural Source Badges
We classify sources by structure, not ideology: Independent Newsroom, State Agency, Think Tank, Independent Newsletter, Aggregator, or Commentary Platform. The badge explains what kind of institution is publishing the claim.
We avoid ideological labels in source scoring. Reliability outcomes are based on measurable performance in our claim database.
Performance Metrics & Formula
Source performance is computed from claim-level data: corroboration rate and time to confirmation.
Public Formula
Performance score = 0.70 × corroboration rate + 0.30 × confirmation-speed score, normalized to a 30-point scale.
Corrections, Reviews, & Appeals
Ratings are reviewed quarterly, after major correction events, and upon verified source appeal. All appeals must include documented evidence.
When new information contradicts a previous assessment, we update the event confidence tier and preserve the correction trail. We do not silently alter records.
Bulk corrections (audits affecting hundreds or thousands of records) are documented in the Audit Log, which lists every cycle's scope, methodology, counts of changes by category, and the location of preserved original-data backups.
What We Don't Do
- We don't editorialize. We present sources and let readers decide.
- We don't publish operational military details that could endanger lives.
- We don't claim certainty where none exists. "We don't know" is a valid answer.
- We don't treat all sources as equal. A wire service with correspondents on the ground is not equivalent to an outlet with low transparency and weak corroboration performance.