Fact-Checking and Evidence

Prepublication Verification Signoff

Confirm that high-risk facts, quotations, figures, claims, identities, media, and instructions received the required evidence checks before release.

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

Download Markdown

Accessible HTML preview

Blank template

The downloaded file contains the same fields in editable Markdown.

Asset and verification standard

Asset title, route, and release version: [Enter]
Publisher and publication deadline: [Enter]
Risk tier and rationale: [Enter]
Intended audience and consequence: [Describe]
Required source standard: [Define]
Required specialists: [List]
Fact-check owner: [Name]
Content freeze time: [Date, time zone]

Material verification

Every high-risk claim has a completed evidence or fact-check record.
Names, roles, identities, dates, places, and contact details are confirmed.
Figures, units, denominators, calculations, and comparison periods were checked.
Quotations match recordings or primary records and preserve context.
Scientific, product, legal, financial, or safety implications reached qualified reviewers.
Images, captions, credits, consent, and provenance refer to the approved files.
Instructions were tested in the stated product, version, or environment.
Headlines, summaries, metadata, charts, and social copy do not overstate evidence.

Exception record

Duplicate for every unresolved or waived item.

Issue and content location: [Enter]
Why standard verification is incomplete: [Explain]
Reader risk: [Describe]
Proposed action: [Qualify / Remove / Delay / Accept exception / Escalate]
Compensating control: [Describe]
Authorized approver: [Name/role]
Follow-up owner and due date: [Enter]
Status: [Open / Resolved / Accepted]

Signoff and release

Verified release version: [Enter]
Open blocking issues: [List or None]
Fact-checker decision: [Approve / Return / Conditional]
Specialist decisions: [Names, scopes, dates]
Managing editor approval: [Name/date/version]
Live URL and verification time: [Enter]
Changing claims to monitor: [List]
Correction contact and process: [Enter]

How to use this template

Confirm the asset's risk tier, verification standard, responsible reviewers, and frozen candidate.
Reconcile each high-risk claim and media element with its current evidence record.
Check that headlines, summaries, visuals, links, and qualifiers preserve verified meaning.
Resolve or explicitly escalate every exception before recording an approval decision.
Verify the live release and assign monitoring for changing evidence or corrective action.

Set the verification tier before the final deadline

Classify the asset from its foreseeable reader consequence, not its length or channel. Health, safety, legal, financial, identity, security, investigative, and crisis content may require specialist review and source standards beyond ordinary editorial checks. Define which claims are material, how many independent sources are expected, who can approve exceptions, and whether a live change could require publication to pause. Do this at assignment or briefing time so the fact-checker is not asked to reconstruct sensitive evidence in the final hour. A short alert can deserve more scrutiny than a long low-risk feature.

Verify the final expression, not an earlier draft

Use a stable release-candidate version and compare every material claim, quotation, number, caption, and instruction with its recorded evidence. Confirm that qualifiers survived editing and that headlines, summaries, charts, social copy, metadata, and visuals do not overstate the body. Reproduce important calculations and inspect units, denominators, time periods, names, dates, and jurisdictions. Check whether source pages changed, whether confidential or anonymous-source handling remains correct, and whether a last-minute design decision alters meaning. If a substantive edit occurs, reopen the affected verification rows.

Make exceptions and unresolved risk explicit

A deadline does not convert an unresolved claim into a verified one. Record open questions and choose to qualify, remove, delay, or escalate. Any accepted exception should name the precise issue, rationale, approving authority, reader risk, and follow-up action. Distinguish factual approval from copy, legal, accessibility, and publishing QA; each has its own scope. After release, verify the live version and monitor time-sensitive claims. A clean signature block must never conceal that a required check was skipped or that reviewers approved different versions.

See the fields in context

Fictional example: regional water advisory

Clearbank and its advisory are invented. This is a workflow example, not public-health information.

Risk tier: High because an incorrect fictional instruction could affect health behavior.
Verification: The release candidate is compared with the imaginary authority's dated notice; time, area, and affected customers are checked independently.
Blocked wording: An unsourced sentence claiming “no risk” is removed rather than accepted for deadline reasons.
Signoff: A fictional subject specialist and managing editor approve the same version.
Live check: The alert headline, map, phone number, and update time are reopened after publication.

Frequently asked questions

How is this different from proofreading signoff?

Verification signoff establishes evidentiary support and required expert review. Proofreading focuses on the final text, formatting, links, assets, and rendered presentation.

Can an editor approve their own exception?

Follow the organization's authority model. Higher-risk exceptions should normally require someone with independent and appropriate responsibility.

What if a source will not respond before publication?

Do not mark the claim verified. Use other sufficient evidence, qualify or remove it, delay publication, or document an authorized risk decision.

Does signoff need to be repeated after a correction?

Reopen every check affected by the change and record a new version. Unaffected rows can retain evidence when their scope is clear.