Reader trust
Editorial standards
Speed matters. Traceability matters more. These rules govern how PowerLeaks turns a developing signal into a public story.
Source before assertion
Stories should identify the reporting, public record, statement, or direct material supporting their central claims. Anonymous or single-source claims should be described with the uncertainty they carry.
Corroboration and verification
Fact-check status and corroboration are separate. “Fact-check supported” means the claim-level check found support. “Corroborated” is used only when accepted evidence spans at least two independent source families. “Mixed evidence” means credible material conflicts; “Disputed” means the central claim is contradicted; and “Not yet verified” means readers should treat the claim as developing.
Image provenance and disclosure
Documentary imagery must retain its source and rights record. Illustrative artwork may be AI-generated, and synthetic depictions of identifiable people require explicit editorial review. PowerLeaks does not remove or crop rights watermarks as a substitute for permission.
Automation and human judgment
Automated systems can discover, compare, draft, and format. They must not invent sources, conceal uncertainty, or turn an unverified signal into a verified claim. Editors can hold, revise, decline, or publish a story.
Corrections
Material errors should be corrected promptly and transparently. A correction should state what changed and why; updates that add new developments should not silently rewrite the original record. Readers can review the corrections process and contact the desk.
Conflicts and attribution
Analysis should be labeled. Quotations and third-party reporting should be attributed. Sponsored material, if introduced, must be clearly separated from editorial work.