Methodology & Sources

1. Purpose

This standard provides a consistent basis for fact-checking, source documentation and editing of CNHRA person and event records, so public records can be traced, reviewed and revised. Prioritize facts, make sources transparent, cross-check evidence, distinguish facts from opinions, allow revisions and maintain independence. Important claims should have traceable evidence. Contested or consequential claims should be corroborated where possible. Political positions, institutional identity and reputation do not replace evidence assessment.

2. Source categories

A–D identify types of material, not a credibility ranking or V1–V4 claim-verification level. A category does not guarantee truth. Assess authenticity, completeness, dates, provenance and the specific statements each source can support.

A · Original materials and official records

Judicial records, laws and policies, government announcements, original UN documents, and authenticated original statements or imagery. Check authenticity, completeness, publisher and scope. An official statement’s existence does not establish every assertion within it.

B · Professional investigations and research

Human rights investigations, legal research, academic papers and reports with explicit methods. Review methodology, underlying evidence, sources and limitations rather than accepting conclusions based on reputation.

C · News reporting

Reporting with editorial oversight, named authors and traceable sources. Distinguish direct investigation from repetition. Multiple outlets citing one statement do not provide multiple independent pieces of evidence.

D · Supporting materials

Social posts, blogs, forums, unverified testimony and imagery or reposts of uncertain origin. These may provide leads but should not alone establish serious allegations. Authenticated original personal statements may qualify as category A for the particular claims they support.

3. Verification levels

The planned V1–V4 levels describe the evidence for individual claims. Assessments should identify supporting material, verification limitations and unresolved contradictions, and be reconsidered when new evidence emerges. The level system remains to be integrated into the archive database.

Planned verification levels

V1 · Verified

Sufficient reliable evidence, with no unresolved substantive contradictions.

V2 · Corroborated

Supported by reliable material, with remaining verification limitations.

V3 · Reported

Attributed reporting or statements, without sufficient independent verification.

V4 · Disputed

Substantive disputes or contradictory evidence.

Levels should apply to individual claims, not entire records. V1 does not mean absolute or permanent truth; V4 does not mean falsehood. Material without an identifiable source should not be recorded as established fact.

4. Verification requirements for consequential claims

Causes of death, torture, enforced disappearance, sexual violence and serious allegations against people or institutions require stricter evidence review. Seek at least two independent reliable sources, preferably including original records. Numbers are not a mechanical threshold. With only one reliable source, attribute the claim, explain limits on independent verification and present substantive conflicting evidence. Attribute personal accounts, third-party allegations, official responses and editorial analysis explicitly. A judgment establishes what a court decided and recorded; its factual findings are not automatically uncontested historical facts. Legal assessments such as arbitrary detention should identify the assessing body, applicable standards and evidence.

5. Source documentation standards

Important source records should include title, publisher, author, publication date, original and archive links, access date, language and review notes, with page or paragraph locations for key evidence. A central source registry and permanent identifiers are implemented, and records cite sources by permanent identifier. Published person and event records use this structure; this does not mean every source has been consulted or independently verified. Sources should be linked to the specific claims they support. Do not present uncertain dates or unconsulted copies as verified information. Distinguish original published text, search-index text, reproductions or preserved copies, and materials not yet consulted. For broken links, seek a new publisher address or public archive and explain any inability to reverify.

6. Verification standards for person records

Person records should verify names, aliases, identities and key biographical details, and individually check important milestones including detention, arrest, prosecution, judgment, imprisonment, release and death. Distinguish legal procedures and dates, and do not present allegations as established facts. Explicitly flag ambiguous identities, uncertain dates and conflicting material, while retaining source attribution.

7. Verification standards for event records

Event records should verify the event name, time, location, background, participants, course and consequences. Distinguish occurrence, reporting and judicial dates; important timeline entries should have corresponding sources. For counts of casualties, detainees or missing people, specify the source, scope and time of the count, and do not present estimates as exact figures. Present differences between conflicting materials and the limits of verification.

8. Consistency between Chinese and English records

Chinese and English records should agree on facts, dates, figures, names, sources, verification levels and expressions of uncertainty. English should faithfully translate the initial Chinese finalized text without adding unsupported claims or removing attribution or qualifications. Check quotations against the original and preserve their meaning in translation. Review both language versions whenever facts are revised.

9. Standards for the use of artificial intelligence

AI may assist with finding leads, organizing timelines, comparing sources, translation and checking fields. An AI answer is not independent evidence. Important claims still require accessible original materials or reliable publications. Do not fabricate sources, document numbers, quotations or dates, present speculation as fact, or pass generated imagery off as historical records.

10. Privacy, safety and ethics

Assess the necessity and safety implications of republishing even publicly available information. Private addresses, phone numbers, identity numbers, nonpublic medical information and details that could identify witnesses or invite retaliation should not be published without a necessity assessment. Review harmful imagery for authenticity and public interest; use content notices or text descriptions where appropriate.

11. Archive revisions and corrections

Revise errors when identified or when reliable new evidence emerges, and explain unresolved substantive disputes. A planned revision log will record dates, affected records, changes, reasons and verification status, distinguishing formatting changes from substantive factual corrections. Public revision logs are not yet available.

12. Pre-publication checks

Before publication, check that important claims match their citations, sources are traceable, dates and legal procedures are accurate, facts are distinguished from opinions and allegations, substantive contradictions and verification limitations are explained, Chinese and English versions agree, and privacy and safety risks have been assessed. Technical checks of fields, identifiers and relationships cannot replace human evidence review. Do not label unverified content as established.

13. CNHRA editorial independence statement

CNHRA should make independent editorial judgments based on evidence. Political positions, institutional identity and reputation do not replace evidence assessment; supporters, partners and external pressure should not determine factual conclusions. Distinguish factual records, source opinions and editorial analysis, be transparent about applicable conflicts of interest, and correct errors based on reliable evidence.

14. Reference methods and international standards

Draw on source transparency, cross-checking, explicit attribution, documentation of limitations and protection of affected people in human rights investigations, archival practice, journalism and academic research. When citing external methods, reports or legal assessments, identify the specific document, assessing body and scope. V1.1 is CNHRA’s own editorial standard and does not imply certification by the United Nations or any other institution, or endorsement by any external institution.

15. Reading source access status

“Full text consulted” means the accessible body of the registered version was read. It does not verify every assertion or establish that the version is a paper original. “Indexed text” means only an index or excerpt was obtained, not full text. “Reproduction or copy” should identify the version actually consulted and any comparison with the original. “Unverified” must not be described as consulted. A source-level “checked” status applies only to its stated scope and does not assign a verification level to an entire record or every claim.

16. Dates and time ranges

Distinguish occurrence, document date, webpage publication, updates and actual consultation. Retain year- or month-level precision when a day is unknown. Timeline entries may record reporting or responses, but must identify their nature. An end date describes the current record’s scope; it does not automatically mean harm, disputes or advocacy ended. A publication date must not be substituted for an agreement’s signing date, a court decision date or a medical procedure date.

17. Originals, reproductions and local preservation

Use court documents, government replies, personal accounts and research for the particular statements they can support. A government reply submitted to the United Nations remains a government account; UN hosting does not make it an independent UN finding. A document photograph published by a news outlet is an image copy, not automatic proof of authenticity or small-print content. Explain when multiple reports share an interview, statement or report. The private archive may preserve downloaded webpages or PDFs, reading text, capture records, preservation notes and SHA-256 checksums. Browser-extracted body fragments must be identified rather than presented as complete HTTP responses. Checksums detect changes to preserved files; they do not prove historical truth. Private research preservation does not grant permission to republish full text or photographs. Missing originals, unavailable links and unverified comparisons must remain explicit.

18. Implementation and version management

This standard uses version V1.1, with Chinese as the basis of the initial finalized text and a faithful English translation. The public website and formal standard should remain consistent; improvements to layout and navigation must not remove or alter provisions without authorization. Record the content and date of substantive revisions and retain historical versions over the long term. Distinguish implemented rules, rules under development and planned rules. The central source registry and permanent identifiers are integrated into published person and event records. V1–V4 assessments and public revision logs remain to be integrated. Source registration and consultation notes do not constitute claim-level fact-checking; planned features should not be described as fully available.