Version 1.0 · Effective 2 September 2026
Hyptor publishes living evidence dossiers about controversial public claims. Our purpose is to help readers distinguish established facts from allegation, inference, prediction and opinion. We do not assign one political label to a story and call that truth.
Our editorial promise
- State the exact question and answer it directly.
- Link readers to the underlying evidence whenever it can be published safely.
- Separate facts, estimates, allegations, interpretations and forecasts.
- Represent material counter-evidence and requests for comment fairly.
- Describe uncertainty instead of manufacturing certainty or false balance.
- Correct material errors openly and preserve a revision note.
How topics are selected
A claim qualifies when it is publicly consequential, disputed, capable of being investigated, and likely to benefit from evidence comparison. Popularity alone is insufficient. We avoid questions that are purely personal, theological or value-based unless a testable factual claim is embedded in them.
The dossier workflow
- Define the claim. We rewrite vague controversies into propositions that could be supported or challenged by evidence.
- Set the evidence cutoff. Every dossier states when the research record was last checked.
- Collect primary material. We look first for court records, legislation, official data, original research, direct statements and authenticated media.
- Seek independent corroboration. A second outlet repeating the same original claim is not an independent source.
- Test alternatives. We actively look for evidence that could disprove the leading explanation.
- Separate observation from cause. Chronology and correlation alone do not establish why something happened.
- Map narratives. We compare what different actors emphasize, omit or define differently without assuming motive we cannot demonstrate.
- Assign claim-level status and confidence. Ratings apply to a specific proposition at a specific date, never to an entire people or political identity.
- Publish sources, limits and revisions. Readers should be able to reproduce the reasoning and identify where judgment entered it.
Source hierarchy
- A · Primary record: Court orders, legislation, official datasets, original studies and authenticated recordings are preferred for establishing what a record says; authenticity and scope are still checked.
- B · Direct authority: Named witnesses, responsible agencies, party submissions and technical experts with direct access are attributed and checked against incentives, access and contrary evidence.
- C · Independent analysis: Peer-reviewed research, transparent forensic work and established monitoring organizations are used when their methods and limitations can be inspected.
- D · Quality reporting: On-record reporting with clear sourcing and corrections standards is useful for chronology and corroboration; underlying sources are preferred when available.
- E · Claim or lead: Anonymous posts, advocacy statements, unattributed images and partisan commentary are never proof by themselves, but may guide further verification.
Institutional status does not automatically make a claim true. Governments, international bodies, researchers, witnesses and news organizations can all be mistaken or selective. Provenance, method and corroboration matter more than prestige alone.
Claim status and confidence
- Documented: directly supported by accessible records or strong independent corroboration.
- Supported: the balance of evidence favors the claim, with a material limitation stated.
- Disputed: consequential evidence or credible interpretations conflict.
- Unresolved: the available record cannot justify a conclusion.
- Unsupported: evidence offered for the claim is absent, irrelevant or too weak.
- False: reliable evidence directly contradicts the claim.
Confidence is expressed as high, moderate or low and is explained beside the claim. New evidence can change both status and confidence.
How Hyptor analyzes bias
Bias is not a synonym for falsehood. A partisan source may report a fact accurately, while a generally reliable source may make a specific error. We therefore examine distinct mechanisms:
- Selection: which events or statistics receive attention.
- Omission: which relevant facts, time periods or affected groups are excluded.
- Framing: labels, headlines, ordering and emotional language.
- Sourcing: whose testimony or expertise is treated as authoritative.
- Visual framing: whether images are representative, current and accurately captioned.
- Access: censorship, embedding, language, geography and physical safety constraints.
- Incentives: ownership, funding, political commitments, audience expectations and commercial rewards.
We describe observable patterns and disclosed interests. We do not claim to know a journalist’s private motive without evidence.
Numbers, casualties and breaking events
Every consequential number should identify the source, cutoff date, unit, population and whether it is reported, identified, verified, estimated or modeled. Overlapping time periods are not added together. When records are incomplete, we explain the direction of likely error without inventing precision.
Legal and scientific claims
Allegations, provisional court measures, arrest warrants and final judgments are different legal events and are labeled accordingly. Scientific findings are described with their population, design, uncertainty and replication limits. A press release does not substitute for the underlying study when that study is available.
Use of artificial intelligence
AI may assist with discovery, comparison, transcription and drafting. It is never treated as a source of facts. Publishable claims must trace to cited material, and editorial responsibility remains with Hyptor. AI-generated or materially altered documentary imagery will not be presented as evidence.
Corrections and updates
Minor spelling or formatting fixes may be made silently. A material change to a fact, conclusion, source description or confidence rating receives a dated revision note explaining what changed and why. Readers can report a suspected error through the site’s published contact channel and should include the claim, supporting evidence and relevant URL.