Preview · Updated 5 October 2026
How we reach an assessment
A clear verdict, with evidence you can inspect and uncertainty we do not hide.
Find the decision
We monitor official federal sources and selected news outlets. We prioritise identifiable decisions, rather than opinion, campaign commentary or topic pages. Discovery is selective, not comprehensive.
Read the evidence
We seek original documents and relevant reporting, store retrieved passages and link claims to sources. A government announcement proves what was announced; it does not independently prove the promised outcome. Copied reporting does not count as independent corroboration.
Assess the policy separately from integrity
A policy can have benefits and still raise integrity concerns. We assess the stated goal, costs, trade-offs, alternatives and available results. For integrity, we distinguish allegations, documented facts and official findings. A donation, beneficiary or unusual timing alone does not prove corruption. We do not invent numerical odds of corruption.
Check before publication
Publication requires live research, distinct cited full-text sources, matching quotations and no unresolved evidence or critique findings. Incomplete reports stay private. These automated checks can still miss errors.
Read the labels
Justified means the reviewed evidence supports the decision; mixed means important trade-offs remain; not justified means the case is not supported; unclear means evidence is insufficient. Integrity concerns are not a criminal conviction, and no specific flags is not proof that misconduct is impossible.
Keep the record current
Source changes and selected promises are monitored. Updates require fresh checks. The evidence date tells you what the assessment covers; it is not a guarantee that all later developments have been captured.