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.
📷 Heptagon, Wikimedia Commons, public domain
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".
- The AI Research Desk searches the Vault, live reporting, and the web. It labels source tiers, identifies conflicts and missing evidence, and treats uncorroborated results as leads rather than established facts.
- We don't quietly edit published claims — every change is logged in Corrections.