Source & Verification Policy

LegalEvidence considers the authority, provenance, independence and proximity of each source to the underlying facts. Sources may generally include:

A source’s category does not determine reliability by itself. Each source is evaluated in context.

Where reporting concerns a lawsuit, regulatory action, company filing or government decision, LegalEvidence should ordinarily seek the underlying record rather than rely solely on third-party descriptions of it.

Where a media report states that a lawsuit was filed, for example, the court record should be examined where reasonably obtainable. Where a regulator is said to have made a finding, the relevant decision, order or official notice should be reviewed where available.

This reduces the risk of repeating another publisher’s error or interpretation.

Different court documents establish different things.

LegalEvidence does not treat an allegation contained in an official filing as an adjudicated fact merely because the filing appears on a court docket.

LegalEvidence distinguishes between:

Where a settlement expressly provides that a party neither admits nor denies specified allegations, LegalEvidence should not describe the settlement as an admission unless another reliable basis supports that characterisation.

Corporate registries and statutory filings may be used to establish matters such as:

The legal meaning of a corporate record depends on the jurisdiction and type of filing.

• A registered address does not necessarily establish where a person resides.
• A directorship does not automatically establish responsibility for every action of a company.
• Share ownership does not necessarily establish operational control.

Material evidence should be examined for:

Verification is not satisfied merely because a document appears professional or has been widely circulated.

Where a serious allegation originates from a single source, LegalEvidence should seek independent support where reasonably possible.

Ten websites repeating the same allegation from one original article do not necessarily constitute ten independent sources. Corroboration may come from:

The seriousness of an allegation informs the degree of verification appropriate before publication.

Documents may be submitted by subjects, lawyers, whistleblowers, employees, former employees, investors, members of the public or other sources. Before material reliance, LegalEvidence may consider:

• Who provided the document
• How the source obtained it
• Whether an original exists
• Whether metadata or provenance can be established
• Whether the document has been altered
• Whether signatures or identifying features can be authenticated
• Whether independent records corroborate its contents

Membership does not give submitted evidence greater weight.

Submit evidence for review

Screenshots, messages, emails, social-media posts, websites and other digital material should be assessed carefully before substantive reliance. Where material, LegalEvidence may seek:

Cropped or context-free screenshots should not ordinarily be treated as conclusive evidence of a serious allegation.

Audio, video and photographic material may require verification of:

The availability of generative AI and synthetic-media technology increases the importance of authentication.

Where authenticity cannot reasonably be established, the uncertainty should be disclosed or the material should not be relied upon for a material factual conclusion.

LegalEvidence may use technology to assist with search, document organisation, translation, entity resolution, comparison or other research functions.

An AI-generated answer, summary or inference is not treated as evidence merely because it was produced by a system.

Material claims identified through automated tools must be traced to reliable underlying sources before publication.

LegalEvidence does not knowingly use fabricated AI-generated quotations, documents, photographs, sources or evidence as genuine material.

LegalEvidence may use lawful OSINT methods to locate and analyse publicly or lawfully accessible information. OSINT may include:

Information discovered through OSINT remains subject to verification. A connection suggested by an analytical tool is not automatically a verified relationship.

Where appropriate, investigators may conduct lawful on-site research to verify addresses, businesses, operations, locations or other matters relevant to an investigation. Investigators should distinguish between:

LegalEvidence does not authorise trespass, unlawful surveillance, bribery, theft or other unlawful methods to obtain evidence.

Where information is obtained through interviews, researchers should consider:

• Whether the source has first-hand knowledge
• The source’s relationship to the subject
• Whether the account is contemporaneous or retrospective
• Potential financial, professional or personal conflicts
• Whether documentary evidence supports the account
• Whether other witnesses can corroborate material claims

There may be legitimate reasons for protecting a source’s identity.

Where LegalEvidence relies on a confidential source, responsible personnel should, where practicable, understand the source’s identity, basis of knowledge, potential motivation and relationship to the matter.

Material allegations from confidential sources should be independently corroborated where reasonably possible.

Source protection is subject to applicable law and cannot be represented as absolute in every jurisdiction or circumstance.

A source may be:

A conflict does not automatically make information false. It does mean the source’s claims may require additional scrutiny and independent corroboration.

LegalEvidence does not allow a source’s personal dispute to substitute for evidence.

Documents or testimony that contradict an allegation receive the same substantive consideration as material supporting it.

Where reliable evidence demonstrates mistaken identity, dismissal, acquittal, reversal, factual error or another exculpatory development, it must be considered in determining what the record can fairly state.

LegalEvidence does not selectively verify only evidence supporting an adverse narrative.

Material LegalEvidence records may maintain a numbered source record. Where appropriate, an entry may identify:

The purpose is to allow material assertions to be traced back to their evidentiary basis.

Where appropriate and lawful, source materials relied upon for significant reporting may be retained so that LegalEvidence can:

• substantiate its reporting;
• review subsequent challenges;
• maintain version history;
• assess corrections;
• respond to legitimate legal issues; and
• understand later developments.

Retention must be handled consistently with applicable privacy, data-protection, security, confidentiality and legal obligations.

LegalEvidence may receive material that is confidential, restricted, privileged, subject to court orders or otherwise legally sensitive. Such material should receive appropriate legal and editorial assessment before use or publication.

LegalEvidence does not assume that public interest automatically overrides confidentiality, privilege, privacy, reporting restrictions or other applicable legal obligations.

Where material appears altered, forged, selectively manipulated or otherwise unreliable, publication should be suspended until the concern can be resolved.

Knowingly submitting fabricated evidence may result in rejection of the submission, restriction of access or other appropriate action.

Where circumstances warrant, LegalEvidence may seek legal advice concerning further action.

Where reasonably appropriate, a subject may be asked to authenticate or respond to documents relevant to them before publication.

A subject’s denial does not automatically invalidate independently verified evidence.

Equally, a document should not be assumed authentic merely because a subject does not respond to a verification request.

Government agencies, courts, registries and regulators may correct or amend records.

Where credible evidence indicates that an official source contains an error, LegalEvidence should investigate rather than mechanically repeat the information.

Where an official source remains disputed, the nature of the dispute should be accurately represented where material.

Records concerning the same person or company may differ between jurisdictions. Names may be transliterated differently. Corporate identifiers may vary. Court systems may use different terminology. Access to official information may differ substantially.

Cross-border connections should therefore be verified using available identifiers and contextual evidence rather than name similarity alone.

LegalEvidence does not treat “Asia,” Europe or any other region as a single legal or evidentiary system.