Verification Workflows for Investigative Stories | UK JournoHub

Last reviewed: 21 May 2026Next review due: 21 November 2026

What verification means in practice

Verification is the process of establishing that what you intend to publish is accurate, fair and defensible — before it goes out. In investigative journalism, it is more demanding than fact-checking individual claims: it requires stress-testing the entire narrative, including the assumptions you have made, the sources you have relied on, and the documents you have used.

The standard varies with the seriousness of the allegation. A claim that a council failed to publish its annual accounts on time is verifiable from a single public source. An allegation that a named individual committed fraud requires a completely different standard of corroboration, document support and legal review. The verification workflow described here is designed for high-stakes investigative work.

When rigorous verification is non-negotiable

1Any allegation of criminal conduct, fraud, corruption or serious dishonesty against a named individual.
2Stories based primarily or substantially on a single anonymous source.
3Allegations where the subject has provided a substantive denial or counter-evidence.
4Stories involving leaked documents whose provenance and authenticity cannot be independently confirmed.
5Any allegation of sexual misconduct, particularly where the subject denies it.
6Stories where the key witness has a potential personal or financial motive to make false allegations.
7Investigations into powerful individuals or institutions who are known to pursue legal action against journalists.

Red flags that your verification is incomplete

You believe the allegation is true but cannot point to evidence that would prove it on the balance of probabilities.
Your corroboration comes from sources who all know each other and may have a shared interest in the story being published.
You have not authenticated the key document — you are taking its authenticity on trust from the source who provided it.
The subject has raised a factual point in reply that you have not been able to disprove.
You have not given the subject enough time to respond — 24 hours is not a meaningful right of reply for complex allegations.
Your expert has given a qualified opinion but you are presenting it as unqualified in the story.
You have not read the subject's response carefully and have not addressed the specific points they raise.

Verification checklist for investigative stories

List every allegation the story makes and identify the evidence you have for each one separately.
For each allegation relying on source accounts, confirm you have at least two sources who arrived at the same conclusion independently.
For serious allegations, aim for three independent sources or strong documentary corroboration, or both.
Authenticate every key document: check metadata, compare with known genuine examples, verify reference numbers where possible.
Where a document is central to the allegation, consider whether forensic document examination is warranted.
Commission expert review for any technical allegation you are not qualified to evaluate yourself — finance, medicine, engineering.
Prepare a specific, clear right-of-reply letter listing each allegation to be published and send it via a traceable method.
Give a fair response deadline — at least 48 hours for significant allegations; longer for complex multi-part stories.
Read the response carefully and address every substantive point — even if you believe the denial is false, note it accurately.
Arrange a pre-publication legal read for any story carrying significant defamation, privacy or contempt risk.
Document every decision in the editorial file — sources contacted, authentication steps, expert views, reply process, legal advice.
Before filing, apply the "would I bet my career on this?" test: are you confident enough in the accuracy of every allegation?

Tools for verification and risk management

Check defamation risk, build your story’s risk register and assess source protection needs before publication.

Defamation Risk Checker Story Risk Register Source Protection Guide

Common verification failures and what they cost

Treating a compelling narrative as evidence — a coherent account from a single credible source is not proof of the underlying facts.
Confusing "I believe this is true" with "I can prove this is true" — the first is a starting point, the second is the publication threshold.
Skimping on the right-of-reply process because you are afraid the subject will seek an injunction — this is precisely when the process matters most.
Not reading the reply — many journalists send the right-of-reply letter but do not substantively engage with the response.
Failing to keep the editorial file contemporaneously — a retrospectively reconstructed file is far weaker than a real-time record.
Assuming a pre-publication legal read will catch everything — a lawyer can advise on legal risk but cannot verify the underlying facts for you.
Not testing your document with a sceptical colleague who has no stake in the story — fresh eyes catch authentication issues that familiarity masks.

Related guides

Right of Reply

The legal and ethical requirements for pre-publication right of reply.

Publishing an Investigation

Pre-publication legal review, response handling and post-publication corrections.

Defamation Risk Checklist

Pre-publication defamation risk assessment for sensitive stories.

Working with Whistleblowers

Source protection, authentication and managing the whistleblower relationship.

Primary sources and further reading

Frequently asked questions

How many independent sources do I need before publishing a serious allegation?

There is no single universal rule, but the standard that has emerged from practice and editorial policy at major UK investigative outlets is at least three independent sources for serious allegations — particularly those alleging criminal conduct, serious professional misconduct, or conduct that the subject denies. "Independent" means sources who have arrived at the same conclusion through separate routes, not sources who have spoken to one another or who derive their account from the same primary source. Documentary corroboration can supplement but not automatically substitute for independent sourcing.

What does document authentication actually involve?

Authentication involves establishing that a document is what it purports to be. Techniques include: checking metadata (when available) — creation date, software version, author field; comparing layout, typography and formatting with genuine examples of the same type of document; verifying any reference numbers, signatures or official stamps with the issuing body; consulting a forensic document examiner where a document is central to a serious allegation; and establishing a credible chain of custody for how the document reached you. The more serious the allegation, the more rigorous the authentication process must be.

What is the right-of-reply procedure and how much time should I give?

Right of reply means giving the subject of your story a genuine opportunity to respond to the specific allegations before publication. IPSO's Editors' Code requires a fair opportunity to reply. In practice: write a precise list of the specific allegations you intend to publish; send it to the subject's solicitors or press office; give a clear deadline — for non-time-sensitive investigative work, 48 to 72 hours is a reasonable minimum, though complex allegations may warrant longer; record exactly when the request was sent, by what method, and when (or whether) a response arrived. Ignore responses only if they are clearly non-responsive or if the reply deadline has passed without substantive engagement.

What should go in the editorial decision file?

The editorial file (or "story file") is your contemporaneous record of how and why you made every significant decision on the story. It should contain: a log of each source contact including date, method and what was said; copies of all documents relied on with notes on provenance; your authentication assessment for key documents; the right-of-reply letter and any response; notes on legal advice received; a record of any editorial discussions about publication decisions; and a written note of your public interest reasoning if you are relying on the public interest defence. In any subsequent complaint or legal proceedings, this file is your primary protection.

What is the "would I bet my career on this?" test?

This informal standard — sometimes attributed to print editors, sometimes to broadcast lawyers — requires the journalist to ask honestly whether they believe the allegation to be true with such confidence that they would stake their professional reputation on it. It is a heuristic for internal honesty: it catches the story where you believe something is true but your evidence does not actually prove it, or where you are being led by a persuasive source whose account you have not independently stress-tested. It sits alongside formal verification steps, not instead of them.

Primary sources

IPSO Editors' Code of Practice — Accuracy— IPSO
NUJ Code of Conduct— NUJ
First Draft — Guide to Verifying Images and Videos— First Draft
Bellingcat — Open Source Verification Guides— Bellingcat
Companies House — Primary Source Verification— Companies House
BAILII — Legal Precedent and Judgment Verification— BAILII