Fact-Checking and Evidence

Downloadable Fact-Checking Checklist and Claim Log

Verify figures, quotations, dates, comparisons, and product details with a reusable claim log that records evidence, qualifiers, and decisions.

Free editable Markdown · Fact-checkers, editors, and researchers · Updated July 30, 2026

Download Markdown

Accessible HTML preview

Blank template

The downloaded file contains the same fields in editable Markdown.

Claim log

Duplicate these fields for each claim.

Claim as written: [Copy the exact sentence]
Claim type: [Number / Quote / Date / Product / Comparison / Other]
Consequence if wrong: [Low / Medium / High]
Primary source: [Title and URL or document reference]
Supporting source: [Optional independent source]
Source date: [YYYY-MM-DD or stated version]
Date accessed: [YYYY-MM-DD]
Relevant evidence: [Summarize the supporting passage]
Required qualifier: [Add scope, period, or uncertainty]
Status: [Verified / Revised / Removed / Unresolved]

Source evaluation

The source is in a position to know the information.
The evidence supports the precise wording used.
The source is current enough for the claim.
A summary was checked against the underlying document when available.
Commercial interests and methodological limitations were considered.

Numbers and comparisons

Units, date ranges, sample sizes, and definitions are present.
Percentages have a clear denominator.
Comparisons use equivalent definitions and periods.
Important calculations were independently reproduced.
Vendor-reported figures are clearly attributed.

Quotations and media

The wording, speaker, date, and source are correct.
Surrounding context does not change the quoted meaning.
The original source is linked when available.
Captions do not overstate what an image or chart demonstrates.

Final record

Unresolved claims: [List claims or write None]
Corrections made: [Summarize changes]
Reviewer: [Enter name]
Review date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
Next scheduled review: [Date or update trigger]

How to use this template

Extract every checkable statement into the claim log.
Prioritize claims that could materially mislead a reader.
Find the closest available primary source and record its date.
Check definitions, denominators, quotations, qualifiers, and conflicting evidence.
Correct the draft and preserve a reproducible verification record.

Fact-check where an error could change understanding

Use the claim log for content containing dates, quantities, quotations, comparisons, product behavior, scientific findings, policy terms, or other statements a reader may rely on. It is particularly important for time-sensitive pages and for claims that influence money, health, reputation, access, or a consequential decision. Not every sentence needs the same effort. Begin by separating verifiable claims from opinion and assigning a consequence level. This helps a reviewer spend more time on assertions where an error would matter while still recording lower-risk corrections. The result should be a traceable decision, not merely a collection of links.

Verify the exact wording and preserve its context

Copy each claim exactly before searching so the evidence is tested against the published wording rather than a weaker interpretation. Prefer the source closest to the event, rule, dataset, or product behavior, and add independent corroboration when a claim is disputed or performance-related. Record the source version, publication date, access date, relevant passage, denominator, period, and any qualifier. Screenshots or archived copies may be useful for changing pages, subject to applicable permissions. A second reviewer should be able to reconstruct why the claim was verified, revised, removed, or left unresolved without relying on the first reviewer's memory.

A citation is not the same as support

Frequent failures include linking a source that discusses the topic but does not support the sentence, comparing figures from different periods, quoting a summary instead of the underlying study, and repeating circular reporting from several sites as if it were independent confirmation. Check who produced the information, how they could know it, and what incentives or methodological limits apply. Do not convert vendor-reported results into independent findings or infer that an unresolved claim is true because no contradiction appeared. When evidence remains insufficient, narrow the language, attribute the uncertainty, remove the claim, or delay publication rather than marking the row complete.

See the fields in context

Fictional example: trial-length claim

CloudGarden is a fictional service. Its imagined trial terms are used only to demonstrate a verification decision.

Claim as written: “The free trial lasts 30 days.”
Primary source: Fictional CloudGarden trial terms, version dated July 28, 2026
Evidence: The fictional terms specify a 14-day trial.
Status: Revised
Correction: Changed 30 days to 14 days, linked the terms, and recorded the access date.

Frequently asked questions

What counts as a checkable claim?

Names, dates, numbers, quotations, product behavior, historical events, comparisons, and statements about what a source says can all be checked.

Is one source enough?

A primary source may directly establish a simple fact, but consequential, disputed, or performance-related claims often deserve independent corroboration.

How should vendor-reported data be handled?

Attribute it to the vendor, preserve its measurement period and definitions, and avoid presenting it as independently verified unless you reproduced the test.

What should happen when a claim cannot be resolved?

Qualify it, attribute the disagreement, remove it, or delay publication. Do not mark it verified simply because no contradiction was found.