Why trust us
Don't. Check instead — we built the archive so you can.
Trust asked for is worth very little in this field. What follows is not a set of assurances but a set of tests you can run against any profile here, and the registers we publish so the answers are verifiable rather than asserted.
- Claims sourced
- Every material claim
- Corrections
- Public log
- Subject replies
- Full, unedited, free
- Subject funding
- None accepted
Six tests
Apply these to us — and to anyone else publishing this kind of material.
None of these tests is special to us. They are the questions worth asking of any archive that makes claims about people, and a publisher that fails several of them should not be relied on, including this one.
Can you see the source?
Every material claim resolves to a numbered entry in the profile's source record, with the source graded A to E. Where a claim rests on one document, the profile says so on its face.
Can you see what changed?
Records are versioned. Corrections are timestamped, the superseded assertion stays visible in the revision history, and material corrections are listed in a public log. Nothing is silently edited.
Can the subject answer back?
Findings go to subjects before publication. Replies are published in full and unedited on the profile, free, at any time — including years after publication.
Can anyone buy an outcome?
We take no money from subjects, no advertising, and no funding conditioned on coverage. Approaches to purchase an editorial outcome are logged and published without the outcome being delivered.
Do we admit what we do not know?
Closed registers, refused records and unresolved identity are documented on the profile as gaps. A profile that claims to be complete is a profile you should distrust.
Does pressure work?
Evidence of error changes a record quickly. A threat without evidence changes nothing. We do not settle editorial questions by reference to the resources of the person asking.
The comparison
What separates a sourced archive from a reputation site.
Sites that look superficially similar to this one exist in large numbers, and some are paid removal operations wearing the costume of journalism. The distinctions are structural and easy to check.
| Test | A sourced archive | A reputation operation |
|---|---|---|
| Removal | Free correction; no paid removal at any price | Removal available for a fee, often via an intermediary |
| Sourcing | Every claim resolves to a graded source entry | Assertions with no traceable origin |
| Reply | Published in full, unedited, free, at any time | No reply mechanism, or one behind a paywall |
| Language | Allegation, finding and fact kept distinct | Everything written at maximum severity |
| Corrections | Public log; superseded text retained | Silent edits, no history |
| Funding | Disclosed; nothing from subjects | Opaque; frequently funded by subjects |
Limits
Where we can be wrong, stated by us rather than discovered by you.
| Failure mode | How it shows up | What we do about it |
|---|---|---|
| Bad underlying record | Registries contain errors, filings are falsified, dockets are mis-keyed. | Cross-reference where a second source exists; flag where none does. |
| Shaped leaks | Document sets can be incomplete or selected to produce an impression. | Graded as single-source until corroborated; limitation stated on the profile. |
| Staleness | A matter resolves and we do not learn of it. | Review intervals per record class; documented staleness flag when missed. |
| Name collision | Two people share a name; adverse material attaches to the wrong one. | Identity resolved before research; explicit caveat where it cannot be. |
| Coverage bias | We over-cover jurisdictions that publish well and under-cover those that do not. | Acknowledged openly; absence of coverage is never read as absence of risk. |
A publisher that presents itself as incapable of error is telling you something useful about its standards. We would rather name the failure modes and show you what we do about each one.
Verify
Check the registers yourself.
If we fail one of our own tests, that is a story.
Tell us where the archive falls short of what this page claims. Discrepancies between our stated standards and our published work are treated as corrections.