The EBW fact-checking policy sets a standard for claims and changes. Distinguish a prepared draft, a completed check, an unresolved issue and a published article. One status does not establish another.
State verification scope for the particular publication. A general aspiration to accuracy cannot replace evidence, method and visible limitations.
Checking before publication
Identify material facts and the consequences of error, then select competent evidence. Match country, category, nationality, effective date and transitional cases. For figures, check units, period and arithmetic.
A citation must support the contextual claim. Check tables, captions, metadata and illustrations separately, since an error can survive there after the main text changes. Do not claim a top-twenty review, Ahrefs measurement or professional sign-off that was not performed.
Evidence priority
Operative rules and competent authorities take priority for legal conditions; original series and methods for statistics. International databases and professional research can add context. Company materials show company claims and need attribution.
Verify the particular question rather than relying on a source’s general reputation. An inaccessible page or unconfirmed point remains a limitation unless other adequate evidence resolves it.
Changes and review priority
Pay particular attention to visa routes, work permission, evidence lists, charges, taxes, wage floors and provider conditions. A change may affect only new applications or retain transitional exceptions.
Prioritise by decision impact and likelihood of change. An intention to review regularly is not evidence of automated monitoring. The current instructions still need checking before action.
Conflicting data and open issues
If official sources disagree, compare subject, dates and category. Identify the operative rule rather than choose a lower threshold to make the article attractive. A case near a boundary needs separate confirmation.
Missing keyword volume must not be converted to zero or invented demand. Unknown site settings, licences and client outcomes must not be filled by assumption either. An open flag remains until evidence resolves it.
Confirmed errors and rechecking
On receiving a report, identify the claim, compare the primary evidence and make a supported correction. Check dependent figures, examples, captions and links. Material changes should be understandable to the reader.
Recheck affected dependencies and unresolved points; do not relabel everything verified without performing that work. An update date is not a substitute for its scope.
If a statement conflicts with its primary source, use the corrections form.
Requesting a check
Use the active contact channel to provide page, passage, concern and new evidence. For a calculation, state the year and assumptions. Avoid unnecessary personal records.
An editorial enquiry differs from urgent official filing and a data-subject request. Handle the message according to its nature rather than promise one deadline for every type.
Further reading: Information sources, Corrections.