DECLASSIFIED BY SEAN · METHODOLOGY · HOW WE GRADE CLAIMS
Editorial Standards · Primary Sources Only

How DECLASSIFIED
Grades Claims

This is the document you point to when someone challenges a verdict. The methodology is not partisan. It is applied consistently regardless of who made the claim. The standards existed before any claim was graded and will apply to any claim graded in the future.

The Four-Verdict System

Most fact-check organizations use binary or three-way systems that collapse important distinctions. DECLASSIFIED uses four verdicts because four verdicts are necessary to capture the actual range of how claims can be wrong. FALSE and MISLEADING are not the same thing. INSUFFICIENT INFO is not a failure of analysis — it is the most intellectually honest verdict available when the evidentiary record is genuinely incomplete.

TRUE
The claim is directly supported by the primary-source record. No material qualifications are required.
Rare in the DECLASSIFIED dataset — not because we skew negative, but because claims selected for the game are those that have been publicly disputed. Undisputed facts are not claims.
FALSE
The claim is directly contradicted by the primary-source record. The falsity is not a matter of interpretation — it can be confirmed through official documentation, physical evidence, or verified primary sources.
FALSE requires the existence of specific, authenticatable contradicting evidence — not merely the absence of supporting evidence.
MISLEADING
The claim contains a factual predicate that is accurate but is framed, contextualized, or deployed in a way that produces a false overall impression. The most precise verdict for technically-true-but-deceptive statements.
MISLEADING is not a weaker verdict than FALSE. It is a more precise one. A MISLEADING verdict requires identifying both the accurate predicate and the false impression it produces.
INSUFFICIENT INFO
The evidentiary record is genuinely incomplete. A verdict cannot be rendered without speculating beyond what the primary sources establish.
INSUFFICIENT INFO is an affirmative analytical position. It is not a failure to find evidence — it is the conclusion that the evidence available does not support a confident verdict in either direction.

The Bogost Citation Scale

Every claim and every player citation is evaluated against a four-tier scale based on the source's proximity to the primary record. The scale is not about prestige — a peer-reviewed journal can be WEAK if its methodology is contested; a government document can be STRONG even if you dislike the government.

TierDefinitionExamples
STRONGPrimary source, official record, or direct documentation. The evidence itself, not a report about the evidence.Congressional testimony, court filings, official transcripts, medical examiner reports, authenticated recordings, NARA documents
CAREFULExpert consensus, major institutional reporting with multiple sources, or peer-reviewed analysis with established methodology.Bipartisan congressional committee reports, Federal Reserve analyses, BLS data releases, multi-outlet verified reporting
WEAKContested, partisan, or secondary-source basis only. May be accurate but cannot be independently verified against a primary record.Single-outlet reporting without sourcing, op-eds, advocacy organization analyses, media characterizations of sealed proceedings
INSUFFICIENTNo credible or identifiable evidentiary basis. The claim is unsourced or its source is not traceable."People are saying," anonymous social media posts, conspiracy sites, claims whose primary source cannot be identified

The Primary Source Standard

DECLASSIFIED grades claims against primary sources wherever they exist. Primary sources include: official government documents, authenticated recordings, court filings, sworn testimony, medical examiner records, NARA materials, and official statistical releases from agencies like BLS, CBO, and the Federal Reserve.

When a primary source is unavailable, the highest available secondary source is used and the citation tier is adjusted accordingly. The absence of a primary source does not automatically result in INSUFFICIENT INFO — it results in a lower citation weight applied to the verdict.

Core Principles

1. The claim is the unit of analysis, not the person.
DECLASSIFIED grades specific statements against the documentary record. A person's credibility, intentions, or overall record are not verdicts. Only the claim is.
2. Context is part of the claim.
A claim cannot be evaluated in isolation from the context in which it was made. "The economy is great" made in February 2020 is evaluated against February 2020 economic data. The same statement in a different context receives a different evaluation.
3. MISLEADING is not a courtesy verdict.
MISLEADING is not used to soften a finding that would otherwise be FALSE. It is used precisely when a claim contains an accurate predicate deployed in a way that produces a false overall impression. FALSE requires specific contradicting evidence. MISLEADING requires identifying both what is accurate and what is deceptive.
4. INSUFFICIENT INFO protects intellectual honesty.
A verdict of INSUFFICIENT INFO is rendered when the evidentiary record is genuinely incomplete — not when the evidence is inconvenient or when the claim is politically charged. It is the hardest verdict to render correctly and the most important one to preserve.
5. All verdicts are subject to revision.
If new primary-source evidence emerges that materially alters the evidentiary record, the verdict is updated. This has happened. This will happen again. The record is not frozen — but the standard for revision is the same as the standard for the original verdict: primary sources, not pressure.

Frequently Challenged Verdicts

Why is "unprecedented persecution" MISLEADING and not FALSE? Because the factual predicate — that no former president had been federally indicted before 2023 — is accurate. MISLEADING captures the accurate predicate while flagging the false inference drawn from it. The verdict is more precise than FALSE would be.

Why is the presidential declassification by thought argument rated FALSE? Because Executive Order 13526 requires a formal written process, no court has recognized declassification by mental intent, and the recovered documents bore active classification markings at the time of seizure. The claim is directly contradicted by three independent primary-source records.

Why don't we grade claims in both directions — why not fact-check Democrats? We do, and we will. DECLASSIFIED by Sean is currently focused on a specific body of documented claims from a specific period. The methodology applies to any claim from any speaker. The framework is not partisan. The dataset is currently focused.

← Phillips Pattern Library · Play DECLASSIFIED →