At Aevum News, sourcing and attribution are not merely editorial guidelines — they are the bedrock of our journalism. In an era where misinformation spreads faster than fact, we believe that transparency in sourcing is the strongest shield against manipulation.
Every article published on Aevum News adheres to rigorous sourcing standards that ensure our readers can always understand where information comes from, who provided it, and how we verified it. This page outlines those standards in full.
Our promise: If we cannot clearly attribute a claim to a verifiable source, it does not appear in our publication. Period. No exceptions.
Every piece of reporting at Aevum News is guided by seven non-negotiable principles that govern how we find, evaluate, and credit information.
Traceability
Every claim must be traceable to an original source document, interview, or direct observation.
Clear Attribution
Readers must always know who said what, where it was said, and in what context.
Balance
Multiple perspectives must be sought and represented fairly, especially on contested issues.
Verification
All information must pass through our multi-layer fact-checking process before publication.
No Unverified Claims
Speculation, rumor, and unverified allegations are never presented as established fact.
Accountability
We promptly correct errors and explain what went wrong through our public corrections process.
We classify every source into one of four tiers based on reliability, proximity to the information, and verifiability. This classification determines how we use the source and how prominently we attribute it.
| Tier | Source Type | Usage | Attribution Level |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 — Primary | Direct witnesses, official documents, original data, firsthand interviews, on-the-ground reporting | Foundation for all reporting; establishes core facts | Full name, title, organization, date, and method of verification |
| Tier 2 — Secondary | Expert analysis, academic research, peer-reviewed studies, established data aggregators | Supports and contextualizes primary information | Name, credentials, institution, and publication/source link |
| Tier 3 — Tertiary | Other news outlets, government press releases, public records, court filings | Supplementary context; must be cross-referenced with Tier 1 or 2 | Organization, document title, date, and link when available |
| Tier 4 — Anonymous | Unidentified sources, leaked documents without clear origin, social media posts | Only used when essential and approved by senior editors; always flagged | Clearly labeled as anonymous/unverified with explanation of limitations |
Minimum standard: Every published article must contain at least one Tier 1 source for its central claims. Articles relying solely on Tier 3 or 4 sources are not published.
Before any information makes it into an Aevum News publication, it passes through a rigorous, multi-stage verification pipeline designed to eliminate errors and catch misinformation at every possible point.
Source Identification
The reporting journalist identifies all potential sources and documents each source's type, accessibility, and potential conflicts of interest in our Source Log system.
Cross-Referencing
Every key claim is cross-referenced with at least one independent source. Data is verified against original datasets, not summaries. Images and videos are reverse-searched and metadata-checked.
Editorial Review
A senior editor reviews the complete Source Log alongside the draft article, checking that every claim has adequate sourcing and that attribution is clear and accurate.
Fact-Check Desk
Our independent Fact-Check Desk — separate from the editorial team — conducts its own verification of all material claims using additional resources and methods.
Final Sign-Off
The Managing Editor provides final approval, confirming that sourcing meets Aevum's standards and that the article is ready for publication.
Breaking news exception: In fast-moving situations, we may publish with preliminary verification and clearly label updates as "developing." However, even under time pressure, we never publish unattributed claims as facts. A correction is issued within 2 hours if new information changes our reporting.
Clear attribution means readers can always distinguish between what we observed, what a source told us, and what we are reporting from another publication. Here are the specific rules that govern every article.
Direct Quotes
Direct quotes are presented in quotation marks and attributed to the speaker with their full name and relevant title or role. If a quote is from a public record (e.g., a speech, official statement), the document and date are cited.
Paraphrased Information
Paraphrased information is clearly attributed using phrases such as "according to," "reported by," or "stated in." We never paraphrase without attribution — every piece of information must have a clear source anchor.
Data and Statistics
All data and statistics cite their original source (e.g., "World Bank, 2024" or "per U.S. Census Bureau data released March 2025"). When possible, we link directly to the original dataset.
Context and Framing
We clearly separate factual reporting from analysis or commentary. Opinion pieces are clearly labeled as such and are never presented as straight news reporting.
Attribution Examples
"We expect significant changes," said Dr. Sarah Chen, Chief Economist at the Federal Reserve, during her testimony before the Senate Banking Committee on March 15, 2025. According to the World Bank's 2024 Global Economic Outlook, emerging markets are projected to grow by 4.2% this fiscal year. The company's quarterly earnings, as reported in filings submitted to the SEC, showed a 12% increase in revenue.
Experts say significant changes are coming. Economic data shows emerging markets are growing fast. The company had a great quarter. Reports indicate the policy will be changed.
Rule of thumb: If a reader cannot identify who said it or where it came from, the attribution is insufficient. When in doubt, over-attribute — never under-attribute.
We recognize that anonymous sources can be essential to investigative journalism, particularly when reporting on matters of public interest where sources face legitimate risks of retaliation. However, we use anonymous sources sparingly and with strict safeguards.
When Anonymous Sources Are Used
An anonymous source may only be used when all three of the following conditions are met:
1. The information is of significant public interest and cannot be obtained through on-the-record sources.
2. The source has direct, firsthand knowledge of the information being reported.
3. A senior editor (Section Editor or above) has personally verified the source's credibility and authorized the anonymity.
How We Attribute Anonymous Sources
Even when a source's identity is protected, we provide as much contextual information as possible without compromising safety:
- Their role or position (e.g., "a senior official at the agency")
- Their basis of knowledge (e.g., "who reviewed internal documents")
- The reason anonymity is needed (e.g., "on condition of anonymity due to ongoing legal proceedings")
- Whenever possible, corroboration from additional sources
Hard rule: No article is published based solely on anonymous sourcing. Anonymous information must always be corroborated by at least one on-the-record source or verifiable documentary evidence.
Despite our rigorous processes, errors can occur. When they do, we address them transparently and promptly. Our corrections policy ensures that errors are visible to readers and that we learn from them.
How Corrections Work
Minor corrections (typos, names, minor factual errors) are updated directly in the article with an inline note indicating what was changed and when, visible near the top of the page.
Significant corrections (errors that affect the meaning of the article, sourcing errors, or misattributions) are handled through a dedicated Corrections Notice that appears at the top of the article. This notice explains what was wrong, what the correct information is, and links to the full correction explanation in our Corrections Archive.
Substantive corrections that fundamentally change the reporting are accompanied by an internal review. The findings of that review — including what went wrong and what process changes were implemented — are published in our Corrections Archive for full transparency.
Corrections are never hidden: Unlike some outlets, we never silently rewrite articles to remove errors. All corrections are permanent, visible, and traceable through our Corrections Archive at aevumnews.com/corrections.
Yes. For any published article, readers can contact our Editorial Office at sources@aevumnews.com to request information about the sources used. We will provide whatever source details we can share, respecting confidentiality agreements and source protection obligations where applicable. Most articles also include links or references to publicly available source material.
During breaking news events, we prioritize accuracy over speed. Our breaking news articles are clearly labeled as "Developing" and include a live-updated source log showing which sources have been verified and which information is still being confirmed. We never sacrifice our attribution standards, even under time pressure.
If a source is discovered to be unreliable or has provided false information after publication, we immediately issue a correction, clearly flagging which claims relied on that source. The article is updated to reflect the accurate information, and a detailed correction notice is published in our Corrections Archive. Our verification team reviews all other articles that may have used the same source.
We use AI tools as assistive resources — for example, to help identify patterns in large datasets or to flag potential inconsistencies — but AI is never used as a source of information. All sourcing, verification, and attribution decisions are made by human journalists and editors. AI-assisted analysis is always clearly disclosed when used.
Before relying on any source, our journalists conduct a Conflict of Interest assessment. This includes researching the source's affiliations, funding, political positions, and any relationships to the subject matter. If a potential conflict exists, it is disclosed in the article alongside the source's contribution. Sources with material, undisclosed conflicts are not used.
Absolutely. Reader feedback is an essential part of our accountability system. You can report any sourcing concerns, attribution errors, or factual inaccuracies through our Feedback Portal or by emailing feedback@aevumnews.com. Every submission is reviewed by our editorial team, and we respond within 48 hours. Significant issues raised by readers have led to corrections and improvements in our reporting on numerous occasions.