The Verify is Facthread's fact-check and source-audit service. You bring a specific claim, statement, statistic, screenshot, article, quotation, AI-generated answer, or other verifiable assertion. I trace it to its strongest available sources, evaluate the evidence, identify missing context and contradictions, and determine what the available record actually supports.

The question isn't whether the claim sounds plausible. The question is whether the surviving evidence supports it.

A statistic or data point repeated across articles without a clear original source

A quotation attributed to a historical or public figure

A factual claim in an article, report, or online post

An AI-generated answer or summary you want checked against primary sources

A screenshot or social media post making a specific factual assertion

A factual claim made by a business or organization

A historical claim that "everyone knows" but nobody cites

A research finding or study conclusion being cited secondhand

Any verifiable assertion where you want to see the evidence, not just the repetition

The Verify traces a claim backward through its source trail and evaluates what the evidence actually supports. The process:

Restates the claim clearly. The exact assertion under review is identified and stated in its strongest, most specific form.

Traces the source trail. Where did this claim originate? Who said it first? Are the sources citing independent evidence, or are they repeating one another? When a primary or original source is reasonably available, it is located and evaluated directly.

Evaluates source quality. Not all sources carry equal weight. Official records, institutional publications, and primary documents are assessed differently from aggregator summaries, secondhand citations, and unsourced repetitions.

Identifies supporting evidence. What is the strongest available evidence in favor of the claim? How direct is it? How recent? How independent?

Identifies contradicting or limiting evidence. Does anything in the available record contradict the claim, narrow its applicability, or add qualifications that change its meaning?

Documents missing context. Is the claim technically accurate but misleading without context? Are important qualifications being omitted in how it's repeated?

Assesses the claim. Each claim receives a bottom-line assessment: Verified, Supported, Misleading, Disputed, Unsupported, or Uncertain.

Assigns a confidence level with a brief explanation of what the evidence does and does not establish.

The Verify covers one primary claim OR one tightly related cluster of up to 3 claims that rely substantially on the same underlying evidence or source trail.

If the claims require separate research trails, different bodies of evidence, or substantially different research questions, they should be scoped separately or moved into another Facthread service. I'll tell you during scoping if that's the case.

You submit the claim. The statement, screenshot, article, quotation, statistic, or assertion you want evaluated, along with any context you have about where you encountered it.

I scope and confirm. I review the claim, confirm it fits The Verify's scope, and clarify anything before starting. If the claim needs a broader investigation, I'll recommend the right Facthread tier before any work begins.

I trace and evaluate. Source-trail reconstruction, primary-source identification where available, source-quality assessment, corroboration analysis, contradiction identification, and missing-context documentation using lawful, publicly accessible sources.

You receive your Verification Brief. A concise, source-backed assessment within 5 business days of confirmed scope.

A Verification Brief / Source Audit containing:

Claim reviewed and clearly restated

Bottom-line assessment (Verified / Supported / Misleading / Disputed / Unsupported / Uncertain)

Strongest supporting evidence with direct source links/citations

Strongest contradicting or limiting evidence, when present

Original or primary source tracing, when reasonably available

Source-quality analysis

Missing context or important qualifications

Confidence level with a brief explanation

Evidence gaps or unresolved questions

The deliverable is a concise written assessment, not an open-ended investigation.

Verified — Confirmed by authoritative primary evidence or independently corroborated by multiple high-quality sources

Supported — Corroborated by credible evidence, but with some limitations or incomplete corroboration

Misleading — Contains a factual core but omits context, qualifications, or framing that materially changes its meaning

Disputed — Credible evidence exists on both sides; sources of comparable quality disagree

Unsupported — No credible supporting evidence found, or the claim is contradicted by stronger evidence

Uncertain — Insufficient evidence to assess meaningfully; the surviving record does not justify a stronger conclusion

"Uncertain" is a valid research conclusion. When the evidence doesn't support a definitive assessment, the brief says so rather than manufacturing certainty in either direction.

The Verify starts with something already asserted and audits the evidence behind it. "Does this claim hold up?"

The Needle starts with an information need and searches for the answer. "What can I find out about this?"

If you have a claim and want it checked, that's The Verify. If you have a question and want it researched, that's The Needle.

Not a platform for confirming or debunking claims to order (the evidence leads where it leads)

Not a private investigation, surveillance, or background-check service

Not access to private, sealed, classified, or nonpublic information

Not legal advice, medical conclusions, financial analysis, or forensic work

Not academic integrity review or plagiarism detection

Not guaranteed findings (some claims cannot be definitively verified or refuted with available sources, and I'll tell you that clearly)

Not speculation presented as fact

Not unlimited research: scoped to one claim or a tightly related cluster of up to 3

One round of clarification questions on the delivered Verification Brief is included, covering sources, confidence levels, assessment reasoning, or anything unclear. Additional claims, new research questions, or expanded scope are separate engagements.

The Verify handles one claim. For different research needs, Facthread also offers:

Rabbit Hole Roulette — Weird questions welcome: you bring a curiosity object, I develop the research question ($95)

The Needle — Focused research and verification for one tightly scoped question ($125)

The Rabbit Hole — Strange, obscure, and hard-to-untangle research questions ($195)

Not in Kansas Anymore — Conspiracy, legend, and extraordinary claim analysis ($350)

The Deep Dive — Multi-source research and evidence analysis for one defined objective ($295)

The Case File — Evidence reconstruction and analysis within defined scope ceilings ($595)

If your claim turns out to need a broader scope, I'll let you know before starting and we can discuss the right tier.