Standards
Methodology
Every claim on The Nigeria Papers carries a label and a source. Here is how we score what we publish, and how we respond when we get something wrong.
Source reliability scoring
| Score | Source type | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| 95–100 | Court judgments, official gazettes | Federal High Court rulings, FG gazette |
| 90–95 | Government audit reports, DMO/NBS/CBN data | Auditor-General report, DMO quarterly bulletin |
| 85–90 | Multilateral institutions | World Bank Nigeria, IMF Article IV, OECD |
| 75–85 | Civil-society audit/watchdog reports | BudgIT, NEITI, SERAP |
| 60–75 | Verified investigative journalism | Premium Times, Daily Trust investigations, ICIR |
| 50–60 | Multi-source mainstream news | 2+ outlets confirming the same fact |
| 30–50 | Single mainstream news report | One outlet, not yet corroborated |
| 10–30 | Anonymous tips, leaked documents (pending verify) | Whistleblower submission under review |
| 0–10 | Unverified social media claim | Unsupported viral post |
Evidence labels
- VERIFIED FACT
Backed by ≥1 source scoring 90+. Multiple corroborations preferred.
- DOCUMENTED CLAIM
Reported by credible source(s) 60–89. Not independently confirmed by official record.
- ALLEGATION
Asserted publicly but not yet supported by primary documents.
- UNDER REVIEW
Submitted to the Vault; awaiting source verification.
- DISPUTED
Credible sources disagree. Both sides are shown.
- CORRECTED
Previously published, now revised. Full correction logged publicly.
What we don't do
- We don't publish anonymous claims as fact.
- We don't invent numbers when official data is unavailable — we show "Awaiting verification".
- We don't let the AI Research Desk speculate. It refuses when the Vault lacks sources.
- We don't quietly edit published claims — every change is logged in Corrections.