Method

How Civic Lantern researches

The same evidence standard applies to every official, party, agency, business, church, and advocacy group.

1. Define the exact question

Broad complaints are turned into questions that can be tested against records.

2. Prefer primary sources

Laws, audits, budgets, contracts, permits, enforcement records, minutes, votes, court records, official datasets, and direct public statements come first.

3. Separate facts from other information

4. Compare records against each other

A public document can contain a typo, outdated figure, missing context, or unexplained revision. A discrepancy is not automatic proof of fraud or corruption.

5. Use evidence labels

LabelMeaning
CONFIRMEDDirectly supported by strong primary evidence.
SUPPORTEDCredible evidence supports the claim, but some information remains incomplete.
UNCLEARNot enough reliable evidence for a confident conclusion.
DISPUTEDReliable records or sources conflict.
MISLEADINGPartly true but missing important context.
FALSEDirectly contradicted by strong evidence.
QUESTIONABLERaises a legitimate concern but cannot yet be classified more strongly.
NEEDS CLARIFICATIONOfficial records conflict, contain apparent errors, or leave a material inconsistency unexplained.

6. Translate without weakening the facts

Main explanations aim for an eighth- to ninth-grade reading level. Technical terms are defined, and extra detail is placed below the main answer instead of being removed.

7. Track citizen access

Civic Lantern records portals, redirects, identity requirements, fees, response times, searchability, technical barriers, and how difficult the records are to understand.

8. Review before publishing

Every page needs a precise question, plain-English answer, primary sources, labeled uncertainty, discrepancy review, privacy review, update date, and a statement of what would change the conclusion.

9. Correct openly

Material corrections are logged. Reliable new evidence can change an assessment.