Editorial translation; the original Portuguese version prevails in case of discrepancy.

Editorial principles

Document before narrative

Every strong claim points to a primary document: a statement, a report, a ruling, a law, official data, or a publication signed by the person involved. An article is not a document.

Labels, not verdicts

Confirmed, Partial, Omitted, Contradicts, Not verifiable. They describe an article on one topic and one date. They do not describe the outlet. We never use "fake".

Verifiable impartiality

The same criterion applies to any subject, in any direction. When an unconfirmed claim favors one side, and another favors the opposite side, both go into the piece.

Transparency of method

Every piece states how it was made: documents, excerpts, and hashes and archive timestamps where they exist, and the result of the two-viewpoint review, one that defends the outlet and the subject of the story and another that defends the reader and the document.

Right of reply

Every outlet or person named may respond. The response is published in full, with the same prominence, within 48 business hours.

Corrections

Our own errors go to the top of the piece, dated and described. The version history remains accessible.

Independence

No advertising from organizations we cover. Funding and the affiliations of those in charge are public.

Whoever has ties to a named organization does not select, write or review the piece about it.

People, not targets

We do not publish the names of journalists. We do not attribute intent. We describe what the text says and what the document says.

Reference standards

The site's structure follows The Trust Project's 8 Trust Indicators, the requirements of the Journalism Trust Initiative (CEN CWA 17493 standard) and the IFCN code of principles. We are not yet certified by any of these entities; the structure exists so that an audit is possible.