Research methodology

A strong argument needs more than a collection of supporting quotations. It needs a clear question, traceable evidence and an account of what could change the conclusion.

Start with the claim

We identify what each source can establish. A ministerial diary can document a meeting without revealing what was discussed. A speech establishes what its speaker said, not that every assertion was true. A judgment must be read for the particular questions the court decided.

We use original documents where available, including legislation, judgments, official disclosures, parliamentary records and attributable statements. Journalism can establish reported events or lead us to original material. Advocacy publications are useful evidence of an organisation’s position; their allegations still need to be assessed on their merits.

Keep three levels visible

What is documented

The event, statement, measurement or decision supported by an identified source, with its date and relevant context.

What we infer

The interpretation we draw from those facts, including a possible influence pathway or political effect.

What remains unresolved

The missing records, disputed accounts or alternative explanations that limit the conclusion.

Test influence, rather than assume it

Access creates an opportunity to influence. Evidence of a request or acknowledged advice can establish input. Showing that this input caused a decision requires more: chronology, correspondence, reasons for the decision and consideration of competing explanations.

We can examine a supported potential connection before every link is proven. We label that inference and identify the missing steps. A donation, trip, meeting or shared position is not by itself proof of control, corruption or policy causation.

Read allegations and legal findings precisely

A complaint, investigation, interim order and final judgment have different meanings. We distinguish them, attribute contested accounts and state the scope of a finding. A quoted accusation is not automatically an adopted conclusion.

Evidence that cuts against an article’s argument belongs in the analysis. The strength of a conclusion should reflect both the supporting record and its limits.

Make the evidence inspectable

Each article includes numbered citations, source links and notes explaining their relevance and limitations. Where access, preservation or verification is incomplete, the source note should say so. The publication date records when an article first appeared publicly. It is fixed, rather than generated when the website is built. Substantive changes are explained in dated correction or update notes.

Illustrations convey the article’s subject. They are not evidence of an event. Adapted photographs retain their source credit and a description of the alteration.

Review and correction

Before publication, factual claims, quotations, source context and the strength of inferences are reviewed. Substantive later corrections should explain what changed and whether the argument was affected. Read the corrections policy →