Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Identify a real investigation topic and document the editorial brief
2 weeks
Identify a real investigatable topic — a policy implementation issue, a local government decision, a business practice, or a public interest matter — that can be investigated through documents and interviews available to you. Produce a formal editorial brief: the story premise (what you think is happening and why it matters), the evidence you expect to find, the potential sources (documents and people), the story's public interest justification, and the ethical considerations (source protection, right-of-reply, harm to third parties). The brief must be written before investigation begins, not constructed retrospectively.
Proof required
Editorial brief (500+ words) covering: story premise, expected evidence, potential sources (documentary and human), public interest justification, and ethical considerations including source protection, right-of-reply approach, and potential harm to third parties.
What gets checked
- Story premise is specific enough to be verifiable or falsifiable — not 'I will investigate corruption in the council'
- Ethical considerations address source protection, right-of-reply, and potential harm specifically for this story
- Brief is clearly prospective — written before investigation, not retrospectively describing what was found
Common mistakes
- Writing a brief after the investigation — a retrospective brief misrepresents the investigative process
- Not addressing source protection — any journalism involving human sources must have a documented source protection approach
- Story premise so broad it cannot be investigated with the resources available — investigative briefs must be scoped to what is achievable
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- Review the brief — confirm it is prospective (written before investigation) based on internal evidence (future tense, speculative language)
- Check the ethical considerations — confirm source protection, right of reply, and harm are each addressed specifically
- Verify the story premise is specific and investigatable
Conduct the investigation and document the editorial process
6 weeks
Conduct the investigation: gather documentary evidence (public records, filed documents, data), conduct interviews (minimum two human sources with their explicit consent documented), cross-check the evidence, and produce a draft story. Crucially, document the full editorial process: every key piece of evidence found, every interview conducted with date and consent record, decisions made about what to include and exclude and why, and the right-of-reply approach taken. The proof is the documented editorial process — not whether the story was published.
Proof required
Investigation package covering: draft story (any length appropriate to the topic), editorial process log documenting evidence gathered, interview records (dates, consent records, not names unless consented), key decisions with reasoning, and the right-of-reply correspondence or record.
What gets checked
- At least two human sources are documented with consent records (not necessarily named if source protection applies)
- Editorial process log documents key decisions — what was included, what was excluded, and why
- Right-of-reply correspondence or record is present — subjects of allegations must be given an opportunity to respond
Common mistakes
- Treating publication as the proof standard — the journalism rule for this outcome is that proof is the editorial process, not publication. A story that is not published can still satisfy the proof standard if the process is rigorous.
- Not documenting right of reply — any journalism involving allegations about named individuals or organisations requires right of reply before publication
- Single-source stories — journalism standards require corroboration for factual claims; a single source makes the story unverifiable
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- Review editorial process log — confirm at least two sources are documented with consent records
- Check key decisions — confirm the log documents what was included/excluded and why
- Verify right-of-reply correspondence or record is present
Submit editorial process for review by an experienced journalist or editor
1 week
Present the investigation package — brief, editorial process log, and draft story — to an experienced journalist or editor for a structured Q&A. The reviewer must challenge specific editorial decisions — 'why did you include this claim with only one source?', 'your right-of-reply approach — did you give the subject enough time to respond?', 'how do you know the documents you have are authentic?'. The journalism rule applies: proof is the editorial process, not publication. The Q&A satisfies the ADVERSARIAL VERIFICATION RULE for social-* outcomes.
Proof required
Q&A notes (250+ words) documenting the reviewer's journalism background, at least three specific challenges to editorial decisions, your responses, and any editorial changes committed to based on the session.
What gets checked
- Reviewer is an experienced journalist (5+ years) or professional editor
- At least three specific editorial decision challenges are documented — not general feedback on writing style
- At least one editorial change is committed to based on the session
Common mistakes
- Presenting to a writer rather than a journalist — the review must be conducted by someone familiar with journalism ethics and practice standards
- Not being able to explain a specific editorial decision under challenge — journalists must be able to defend every inclusion and exclusion decision
- Not revising any aspect of the investigation based on the review — a genuine editorial challenge almost always surfaces something to strengthen
Resources
What a verifier looks for
- Confirm the reviewer is an experienced journalist (5+ years) or professional editor
- Review Q&A notes — confirm at least three specific editorial decision challenges are documented
- Check that at least one editorial change is committed to based on the session