How does factually.co come to their conclusions and ansers

1. How claims are chosen: a newsroom triage that weighs harm and reach

Factly reports that its team meets daily to select claims, prioritizing items by potential real‑world harm, likelihood of virality, influence of the claimant, and the claim’s public importance, a selection process designed to capture politically and socially consequential misinformation ^[1]. This mirrors standard research practice where framing the research question — here, which claims to check — is the first methodological step and directly shapes what conclusions are possible ^[3].

2. The research stage: gathering and weighing evidence

Factly says it examines each claim against available evidence and sources, and then arrives at a rating based on that research ^[1]. In methodological terms, drawing a conclusion requires that the judgment be “logically and factually based on data that is observed, recorded and well represented,” a standard discussed in scientific method primers and emphasised across research guides ^{[4] [3]}. The public description does not exhaustively list every source type or the mechanics of corroboration, so the precise balance between primary documents, expert statements, and open‑source material is not verifiable from the available text ^[1].

3. The rubric and the headline verdicts: what the ratings mean

Factly uses a fixed set of verdicts — TRUE, PARTLY TRUE, FALSE, MISLEADING, UNVERIFIED — and says the final rating is “based on the above research” ^[1]. Those categories are conventional in fact‑checking and aim to communicate degrees of evidence and certainty; methodological literature underscores that conclusions should follow from the method and data, not precede them ^{[4] [2]}. However, the high‑level labels leave interpretive gaps: for instance, “PARTLY TRUE” and “MISLEADING” require procedural thresholds that the published summary does not fully specify ^[1].

4. Editorial oversight and internal consensus: checks, but also potential group biases

Factly asserts that editorial checks occur — stories are vetted personally by the editor and chief editor — and that team opinion is solicited through internal messaging to confirm ratings ^[1]. That editorial vetting is a reliability safeguard consistent with fact‑based decision‑making best practices that seek to reduce errors introduced in data capture and analysis ^[5]. Yet inviting team opinion and centralized vetting creates moments where institutional preferences, unconscious bias, or a drive for narrative coherence could steer borderline judgments; the public methodology notes the processes but does not disclose internal conflict‑resolution rules or how dissenting views are handled ^[1].

5. Claims of independence and external accountability

The methodology page states Factly operates without editorial interference from its parent company and is a verified signatory of the IFCN Code of Principles, an external accountability mechanism that commits signatories to transparency and fairness ^[1]. Being an IFCN signatory signals adherence to accepted norms, but the public summary does not provide full publication audits, datasets, or a reproducibility protocol that would allow outside researchers to re‑run the check and fully reproduce conclusions ^[1].

6. What the public cannot confirm from the published methodology

Standard research texts stress that methodology must explain how data were collected, analyzed, and how conclusions were reached; the Factly summary affirms process elements but omits fine‑grained methodological detail such as source selection criteria, weighting rules, or how ambiguous evidence is quantified — gaps that limit independent verification of specific verdicts ^{[6] [2]}. Where the methodology is silent, it is appropriate to recognize the limitation: the available reporting does not permit a full audit of every procedural decision Factly makes when transforming evidence into a final rating ^{[1] [2]}.