Claim Review Authoring Checklist¶

Purpose. Standardize how we evaluate high-stakes statements. Each Claim Review is a short, source-linked analysis with a clear rating and date.

This page documents our internal process; it also explains to readers how we do reviews.

A. Before you start¶

1. Identify the claim (verbatim or tight paraphrase). Include who made it (claimant) and when/where (email date, meeting, document).
2. Scope the claim: is it a checkable fact (not a prediction or opinion)?
3. As-of date: the evidence cutoff for this review. Use a fixed date/time in America/Chicago.

B. Gather sources¶

• Primary exhibits on the hub (exhibit pages or sanitized PDFs).
• Your narrative sections that set context (link exact heading/anchor).
• Procedural records (request letters, registrar confirmations, AG referral receipts).
• If you cite third-party content, link the official copy (e.g., policy PDF).

Do not link unredacted items. Use only sanitized, published exhibits.

C. Evaluate¶

1. What was claimed? Quote or paraphrase neutrally. Add the date and venue.
2. What do primary records show? Summarize only what is established. Attribute, don't characterize.
3. What remains unknown or contested? Be explicit.
4. Were key documents requested but not produced? Note that and cite the request.

D. Rate the claim¶

Choose one:

• Established — Supported by primary documents with no material contradiction.
• Partly established — Material parts are supported; some aspects are missing/unclear.
• Unsupported (as of date) — No primary record currently supports it.
• Refuted — Primary records contradict it.
• Context needed — Technically true but materially misleading without context.

Avoid legal conclusions. Stick to documentary facts.

E. Write the Review (structure)¶

1. Claim (bold): one sentence.
2. Claimant, date, venue.
3. Verdict (rating + one-line justification).
4. Why (3-6 short sentences citing exhibits).
5. Evidence: bullet list linking exhibits with one-line descriptions.
6. What we don't know (gaps).
7. As-of date/time.
8. Corrections & follow-ups (how to contact; link to policy).

F. Redaction & privacy¶

• Re-check the exhibits you link: no personal emails of private citizens, DOBs, SSNs, other students' PII, HIPAA identifiers about other people, etc.
• If an exhibit is later corrected or further redacted, update the Claim Review.

G. QA before publish¶

• Read aloud once; remove adjectives; attribute statements.
• Check all links (open in new tab).
• Add JSON-LD ClaimReview block.
• Add to Claim Index and optionally to the timeline (as a small marker).
• Run the pre-publish redaction check.