Source Verification Checklist — Twelve Questions Before You Rely on a Source
The moment a source becomes load-bearing is rarely the moment anyone stops to ask what has actually been checked. Running the same twelve questions every time makes the omission visible instead of assumed.
Last reviewed: Next review due:
Source Verification Checklist
Work through all 12 questions before publishing. Answer “Yes” or “No” for each item. A strong source should score at least 10 out of 12.
1Have you contacted the source directly (not relying solely on third-party accounts)?
2Do you have written or recorded confirmation from the source?
3Have you cross-checked the source against Companies House, Land Registry, or another official register if relevant?
4Is the source identifiable (name, title, organisation) and have you verified their identity?
5Have you sought a second independent source to corroborate the key claim?
6Have you checked the source's track record for accuracy in previous statements?
7Have you given the subject of the story a proper right of reply?
8Are you confident the source has no undisclosed conflict of interest?
9Have you verified any documents provided by the source (checked provenance, metadata, format)?
10Have you checked whether any of the information is sub judice or subject to a reporting restriction?
11Have you consulted your publication's legal team or a media lawyer if there is any doubt?
12Would you be comfortable explaining your verification process in a published Editor's Note?
How it works
- Twelve yes/no questions: direct contact rather than second-hand accounts; written or recorded confirmation; cross-checks against Companies House, Land Registry or another official register; identity verification; a second independent source for the key claim; the source’s track record; a proper right of reply for the subject; undisclosed conflicts of interest; document provenance, metadata and format; sub judice and reporting restrictions; legal review where there is doubt; and whether you would be comfortable explaining your process in a published Editor’s Note.
- A live bar shows Yes answers out of twelve as a percentage, red below 6, amber at 6-9, green at 10 or more.
- The verdict text reads “Source verification strong — ready to proceed” at 10 or more, “Verification incomplete” at 6-9, and “Verification insufficient — do not publish without further checks” below 6.
- Clicking the same button again clears that answer, and a tally panel breaks the state down into answered, yes, no and unanswered.
When to use it
- Before a story turns on what one person has told you, particularly if they approached you.
- When a source offers documents and you need to separate what they say from what the paperwork shows.
- As a shared standard across a desk, so two reporters mean the same thing by “checked out”.
- Before a legal read, to give the lawyer a structured account of the verification done.
What it does not do
- Every answer is self-reported and nothing is verified. The tool cannot tell whether you really searched Companies House.
- All twelve carry equal weight, so “would you be comfortable explaining this in an Editor’s Note” counts as much as “have you verified the documents provided”.
- It asks whether the source is identifiable and whether they have a conflict of interest, but it never asks how they know what they claim to know. Access — were they in the room, do they hold the document, are they repeating hearsay — is usually the question that decides whether a source is worth anything, and it is missing.
- There is no save, print or export, so it produces nothing for the story file.
More tools
This is one of the free tools on UK JournoHub. See the full tools index for the rest.