Have independent fact-checking organizations assessed factually.co's accuracy?

1. What the supplied reporting actually covers: CQC’s factual‑accuracy procedures

The bulk of the provided material explains how the UK Care Quality Commission (CQC) manages a “factual accuracy check” of draft inspection reports: providers get a draft, have a limited window (often 10 working days) to submit point‑by‑point factual accuracy comments via an online portal or MS Word form, and CQC considers the evidence and may amend the draft where warranted ^{[1] [2] [4]}. Several guidance and legal‑practice pieces stress that to alter a draft report providers must supply supporting contemporaneous evidence and that the FAC process is distinct from challenging judgments or ratings except in narrow circumstances ^{[1] [4] [5]}.

2. What the supplied material does not show: no direct fact‑checker reviews of factually.co

Among the search results there is no item that evaluates or rates an outlet named factually.co. The only sources that discuss systematic assessment of media accuracy are a methodology page from Media Bias/Fact Check and various CQC documents about internal factual‑accuracy checks — none actually say that independent fact‑checking organizations have evaluated factually.co ^{[3] [1] [2]}. Therefore, claims that specific fact‑checker assessments exist are not supported by the provided reporting (available sources do not mention independent assessments of factually.co) ^{[3] [1]}.

3. How mainstream fact‑check assessments typically appear in reporting

When independent fact‑checkers or credibility evaluators publish assessments, the deliverable is usually a documented review or rating using stated methodology: for example, Media Bias/Fact Check updated a methodology in 2025 describing how outlets are scored on ideological bias and factual reliability and which fact‑checking records feed into “factuality” measures ^[3]. If factually.co had been assessed, one would expect a similar item in this corpus citing methodology and findings; no such item appears here (p1_s4; available sources do not mention a factually.co review).

4. Possible reasons you can’t find a review in these results

The documents returned are concentrated on UK regulatory factual‑accuracy procedures (CQC) and on general evaluation methodologies (Media Bias/Fact Check, ACL scholarship). That topical concentration can obscure searches for discrete outlet reviews; in other words, the absence of evidence here may reflect limited query scope rather than definitive proof that no assessment exists elsewhere ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The supplied results do not include comprehensive lists of media outlet reviews, so independent evaluations could exist outside this dataset (available sources do not mention factually.co).

5. What to do next to get a definitive answer

Search primary fact‑checking organizations’ databases and transparency pages directly (e.g., IFCN signatories, Media Bias/Fact Check, PolitiFact, AP, FactCheck.org, Snopes). Look for an entry or site review labeled “factually.co” and check the reviewer’s methodology and date. The materials here show that credible reviews are accompanied by explicit methodology statements — use those as a benchmark for evaluating any future find ^[3].

6. Limitations and how to judge future findings

My review is limited to the supplied search results; they cover CQC factual accuracy processes, legal guidance, and a media‑bias methodology but do not include outlet‑by‑outlet fact‑checks ^{[1] [2] [3]}. If you locate an alleged fact‑checker assessment of factually.co, verify that the reviewer names specific failed or passed claims and links to source evidence, and confirm the assessor’s methodology and date ^[3]. Absent that, treat unverified assertions about the site’s accuracy as unsupported by the materials provided here (available sources do not mention such assessments).