Source Verification Confidence Checker — Score a Source Out of 100
Newsrooms rarely disagree about whether a source has been checked — they disagree about whether the checking was enough. Putting a number on it forces the argument into the open, so long as everyone understands the number is arithmetic on your own answers.
Last reviewed: Next review due:
Source Verification Confidence Checker
Get a 0–100 confidence score based on source type, corroboration, and how many verification steps you've completed, plus a red/amber/green publication recommendation.
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 to you (name, title, organisation), even if not published?
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 (checked provenance, metadata, format)?
10Have you checked whether any of the information is sub judice or subject to a reporting restriction?
Select source type, corroborating source count, and answer all 10 questions to see your confidence score.
How it works
- Three inputs feed the score: source type (official body, named organisation, documentary evidence, social media account or anonymous individual), the number of corroborating sources, and yes/no answers to ten verification questions covering direct contact, written confirmation, official-register checks, identifiability, a second source, track record, right of reply, conflicts of interest, document provenance and reporting restrictions.
- The arithmetic is a baseline by source type (official +20, named organisation +12, documentary +10, social 0, anonymous -10), plus corroboration (none -15, one +5, two +15, three or more +25), plus your yes answers scaled to 55 points, clamped to 0-100.
- It bands the total: 75 and above green “likely safe to publish”, 50-74 amber “proceed with caution”, below 50 red “do not publish without further verification”.
- It then lists every question you answered No to or left blank as a gap to close, and adds fixed warnings when corroboration is zero, when the source is anonymous, or when the source is a social media account.
- No score appears until source type, corroboration and all ten answers are set. Nothing is stored or transmitted.
When to use it
- Arguing a publication decision with a desk that wants to run something on a single anonymous source.
- Handing a story over to a colleague or a lawyer, where you need a structured account of what was and was not checked.
- Comparing two competing sources on the same story, to see which one the evidence actually favours.
- Training a junior reporter on what a full verification pass looks like before they run their first contested story.
What it does not do
- The score is arithmetic on your own self-assessment. Answering Yes is an assertion, not evidence — nothing is checked against a register, an archive or a document, and a green result is not editorial clearance.
- The weightings are still generous at the top of the scale: an official-body source with three or more corroborating sources reaches green with only six of the ten verification steps answered Yes. Read the gap list, not the colour.
- All ten questions are worth the same 5.5 points, so “have you verified the documents provided” counts exactly as much as “have you checked the source’s track record”. A single fatal gap does not sink the score.
- Nothing is saved, printed or exported. Reload the page and the assessment is gone — if you need a record for the story file, use the Story Risk Register or write it up yourself.
More tools
This is one of the free tools on UK JournoHub. See the full tools index for the rest.