What we verify
Fact-checking applies to names, dates, numbers, quotations, product capabilities, scientific claims, policy descriptions and the context required to understand them. The level of review should match the potential impact of an error. A claim about a public health risk, financial decision or legal requirement receives more scrutiny than an incidental descriptive detail, though all published facts should be accurate.
We also examine implication. A sentence may contain individually correct numbers while creating a misleading conclusion through comparison, omission or scale. Editors ask whether the evidence supports the headline and whether an ordinary reader would understand the limits. Predictions, opinions and informed analysis are labelled as such rather than presented as verified future events.
Source hierarchy
Original documents and direct evidence are the preferred starting point. Depending on the subject, these may include legislation, court or regulatory records, company filings, product documentation, peer-reviewed research, datasets, public speeches and direct interviews. Official status alone does not eliminate the need for context or independent review.
Reputable reporting, expert analysis and systematic reviews may help explain primary material or identify questions it does not answer. We consider the publication date, author expertise, methodology and possible incentives. Screenshots without a reliable origin, copied articles, anonymous messages and synthetic media require verification before use. A social post is evidence that the account published the statement, not necessarily that the statement is true.
Verification methods
Writers trace claims to the earliest reliable source, compare more than one source for material facts and review the complete document rather than a cropped excerpt. Images and video may be checked through reverse search, metadata, landmarks, weather, shadows or earlier appearances. Product and software instructions are compared with current official documentation and, when possible, tested in the relevant environment.
Numerical claims are recalculated where practical. Percentages are reviewed against the underlying base, and survey findings are read with sample and wording in mind. Translated material is checked for meaning rather than literal word substitution. When specialist interpretation is necessary, we seek an appropriately qualified source and describe the area of expertise.
Contacting the subject
A person or organisation facing a significant allegation should normally receive a fair opportunity to respond before publication. The request should identify the substance of the claim, provide a reasonable deadline and avoid implying that a response guarantees control over the article. If the deadline reflects an urgent public-interest story, we explain that limitation.
A refusal or absence of response is not evidence that an allegation is true. We report the response accurately, include relevant context and update the article when a material answer arrives after publication. Routine product guides and analysis may not require comment from every organisation mentioned, but the reporting must still represent policies and specifications fairly.
Uncertainty and changing information
Some information cannot be confirmed immediately. We may state what is known, identify the source and describe what remains unresolved when the public value of timely publication outweighs the uncertainty. Language such as ‘according to’, ‘preliminary’ or ‘has not been independently verified’ must be meaningful and placed near the relevant claim.
Fast-changing software, prices, travel rules and policies are dated and linked to an official location readers can check. We avoid presenting an old version as current. When a claim depends on an estimate or model, the assumptions and range should be clear enough for a non-specialist to understand that the result is not an exact measurement.
After publication
Readers, sources and subjects may submit evidence that a claim is wrong or incomplete. The editorial team reviews the original notes, cited material and new evidence. A confirmed error is corrected promptly and, when material, explained in a note. A disputed interpretation may be clarified or expanded even when the original sentence is factually defensible.
We retain an internal record of significant corrections and look for repeated causes such as ambiguous sourcing or an outdated reference. Fact-checking is not a one-time gate; it is an ongoing responsibility to maintain a useful public record. Questions can be submitted through our Contact page with the article URL, disputed text and supporting source.
Verification after publication
Fact-checking does not end when an article is published. Software features, public programmes, prices, research findings and travel requirements can change, sometimes without a prominent announcement. Gecktechs reviews time-sensitive work when an update is scheduled, when a source changes or when a reader provides credible evidence that the current version may mislead. A revised article should preserve the meaning of the original reporting unless a transparent correction is required. Significant changes are described so a returning reader can understand what is different and why.
Readers can support this process by sharing the exact sentence in question, the page address, a current authoritative source and a brief explanation of the conflict. Screenshots may help but are not always sufficient because they can lack date or context. The editorial team evaluates the underlying source, reaches out for clarification when necessary and records the outcome. A disagreement with analysis is not automatically a factual error, yet we still examine whether the article distinguishes evidence, inference and opinion clearly enough.