Methodology¶
This page describes how the project works with information: how we verify, how we rank degree of proof, how we distinguish a fact from a testimony, how we respond to errors.
Levels of evidence¶
Every claim in our publications corresponds to one of four levels. The level is explicitly indicated in materials where facts of different degrees of confirmation are mixed.
Level 1 — document. The claim is supported by a primary document that we have seen and stored in the archive: an official publication, a financial report, a registry extract, a screenshot of a public post, a video recording of a public speech. These are the strongest claims. The source is always indicated with a link to a card in our archive.
Level 2 — public data from independent sources. The claim relies on publications by other journalists or organisations, where several independent sources exist. Here we trust someone else’s verification, but we check for consistency: if one outlet says one thing and another the opposite, we note this explicitly.
Level 3 — source testimony. Information has been received from a source whose identity we do not disclose. It is presented explicitly: “according to a source familiar with the situation", “according to a former employee", “based on information passed to us". This is not presented as a confirmed fact. If we have only one such source, we either look for confirmation from a second independent point or publish the material with an explicit indication that there is only one testimony.
Level 4 — reconstruction. This is our logical interpretation of the available facts. For example: “given that the budget was X and the report shows only Y, there are grounds to suppose Z". Here we explicitly use verbs of supposition (“presumably", “there are grounds to believe", “probably"). Level 4 claims may turn out to be incorrect, and we are ready to issue corrections when contradicting facts come to light.
A special case — internal information from insiders¶
Some of the structures we write about hide their financial activity from the public. Bank statements, transfers between accounts, contracts, actual spending from grants, and internal correspondence on personnel decisions do not enter the public domain. Some of this information becomes known through people who themselves worked or work in these structures. These are, as a rule, former or current employees, contractors, grantees, volunteers. What their real risks are and what we do for them is described on the page Source protection.
This page is about how we work with such information in the publication itself.
Labelling the level. Most information from insiders is published with the label Level 3 (source testimony): “according to a source familiar with the financial operations of the organization…", “according to a former employee…". This is not presented as a final fact.
Confirmation from a second point. Where possible we look for confirmation from a second independent point — public registries, documents from another source, mentions in publications. If such confirmation is found, the claim may be reclassified as Level 1 or 2 with an explicit reference to the confirming source.
Rounding and generalisation. Precise figures that could lead back to a source (for example a specific salary or transfer amount known to a very narrow circle of people) are rounded or replaced by an order of magnitude: “on the order of a million", not “1,273,458 PLN". This decision is taken jointly with the source.
Request for comment. To the person whose actions are being described, a request for comment with specific questions is sent (see the section below). If the person provides documents confirming or refuting our findings, that is reflected in the publication.
Topic filter. We publish information relating to the public activity of a structure: distribution of grant funds, personnel decisions, fulfilment or non-fulfilment of declared obligations, representational expenses, affiliations with third parties. We do not publish information about private life, personal relationships, or medical or family circumstances of those involved, even if it is known to the source.
We do not present such information as conclusively established facts, but we do not ignore it either. The journalistic function here is to record that independent observers have grounds to ask questions.
Request for comment¶
Before publishing material containing critical claims about a specific individual, we send that person a request for comment. This is standard journalistic practice. The request contains:
- A brief description of the material being prepared
- A list of specific claims that concern the addressee
- A deadline for response (usually 5–7 working days)
- A contact for the response
If a response is received — it is built into the publication. If a response is not received within the deadline — the publication appears with a note: “a request was sent; at the time of publication no response had been received". If a response comes after publication — an update is added with the person’s position.
A request for comment is not required in the following cases: the criticism concerns a structure or a collective decision rather than a personal action; the material is based entirely on public documents and public statements by the person themselves; the matter concerns a refusal to provide a public report that has already been requested publicly many times.
What makes a piece ready for publication¶
The minimum checklist by which we check material before release:
- Every Level 1–2 claim has a link to a source in the archive or to an external piece
- Level 3 claims are explicitly labelled as source testimonies
- Level 4 claims are explicitly marked as reconstruction or supposition
- All persons and organizations mentioned that have cards on the site are linked; new cards have been created if they did not exist
- A request for comment has been sent (where applicable) and the deadline has passed or a response has been received
- Metadata in primary documents has been stripped where there is risk to the source
- Two-way connections in the archive and cards are updated (see archive rules)
Errors and corrections¶
If a factual inaccuracy is discovered in published material, we:
- Make the correction in the text
- Add a “corrected [date]" note with a brief description of what was changed
- In critical cases (for example, the material contained an erroneous claim about a person) — publish a separate announcement of the correction
If a correction changes the meaning of the material, the original and corrected versions are preserved in the git repository history and are accessible through the change log on GitHub.
Conflict of interest¶
The authors of the project do not receive funding from the structures they write about and do not work with them in any other capacity. If such a situation arises in the future (for example, a funding source for the project also becoming a subject of investigation) — we will publish a corresponding statement and remove the affected author from the relevant materials.
What we do not do¶
Belarus Transparency is a research project. We:
- do not engage in the exposure of private life, relatives, or personal decisions (where these are not directly connected to the subject of an investigation)
- do not publish leaks of personal data of rank-and-file employees and volunteers of organizations
- do not assess views and motives — only actions and their consequences
- do not act as a judicial authority — we document, we do not pronounce verdicts