Editors & Accountability

Editors

Governance for Ekalavya Hansaj dossiers

This page shows who takes responsibility for what, how publication decisions are made, and how readers can challenge a dossier with evidence. The goal is simple: if we publish a hard claim, the steps behind it should be clear, and the correction route should be real.

If you are a source, a subject, a partner, or a reader, use the contact routes below. If your matter is sensitive, follow the secure submission steps before you send anything so you do not expose yourself by accident.

Request More Info

Network Brands

Leadership & Accountability Roles

Ekalavya Hansaj

Founder And Editor-In-Chief

Editorial remit

Global publication authority across dossiers released by Ekalavya Hansaj and internal member outlets.

Authority

Final approval on high‑risk dossiers, publication holds, and disputes where the proof threshold is challenged.

Background

Leads long‑form dossier work built from documents, direct reporting, and strict verification. Pushes every team to show where each claim comes from and to keep the writing clear enough that a careful reader can check the work.

Disclosures

This role currently lists no ongoing outside commitments that affect editorial sign‑off.

Anjali Shahi

Co-founder and Deputy Editor

Editorial remit

Dossier readiness, structure, and publication coordination for Ekalavya Hansaj across multiple jurisdictions.

Authority

Commissioning approval, deadline sign‑off, and escalation routing when a dossier moves from reporting into publishable form.

Background

Keeps dossiers on track by locking the claim list early and holding the right‑of‑reply schedule steady. Makes sure the finished report reads clean and does not slip into vague language.

Disclosures

No standing disclosures are recorded for the Deputy Editor position at the moment.

Emily Frida

Head Of Investigations

Editorial remit

Investigations desk leadership, source handling rules, and field reporting discipline for dossiers published under Ekalavya Hansaj.

Authority

Signs off on investigative plans, reporting scope, and whether evidence is strong enough to move from lead to dossier build.

Background

Directs the investigations desk from first tip to finished dossier. Focuses on source safety, evidence strength, and whether a claim can be proven without cutting corners.

Disclosures

At this time, no ongoing disclosures are published for the Investigations lead role.

Teresa Jossy

Standards And Ethics Editor

Editorial remit

Standards, ethics, and sourcing discipline for dossiers released by Ekalavya Hansaj and mirrored across owned outlets.

Authority

Can require changes before publish, can demand stronger corroboration, and can stop weak anonymous sourcing from entering key allegations.

Background

Sets sourcing and ethics rules so readers can tell what is known, what is alleged, and what is analysis. Steps in when harm risk is high or when language needs to be tightened.

Disclosures

No active disclosures are posted for the standards desk today; changes will be listed here if that ever becomes necessary.

Dossier Editors By Domain

Andrea Schuller

Executive Editor

Editorial remit

Dossier architecture, narrative clarity, and exhibit alignment for corporate, political, and institutional investigations.

Authority

Approves the final dossier structure, the summary accuracy, and the placement of primary documents and appendices.

Background

Shapes long dossiers into a structure the reader can navigate: summary, findings, evidence, and appendices. Keeps exhibits aligned with the claim they support so the proof is not decorative.

Disclosures

The Executive Editor position currently has no standing disclosures listed on this page.

Chris Pennington

Research Director/Editor

Editorial remit

Research verification, record checks, and claim‑by‑claim support packs for dossiers produced under Ekalavya Hansaj.

Authority

Signs off on evidence completeness for key claims and flags gaps that must be fixed before publication.

Background

Builds verification packs that connect each claim to a source, date, and record. Known for spotting small errors that can damage a big story if they slip through.

Disclosures

No ongoing disclosures are posted for the research leadership role at present.

Agatha Wilmer

Data Forensics Director/Editor

Editorial remit

Data integrity, document authenticity checks, and forensic review of exhibits and datasets used in dossiers.

Authority

Approves technical claims, validates dataset handling, and confirms whether an exhibit can be published in full, excerpted, or redacted.

Background

Validates data and exhibits used in dossiers so numbers and files match the story being told. Checks whether a chart, a table, or a document is being used honestly and safely.

Disclosures

No continuing disclosures are listed for the forensics desk at the moment.

Samantha Harper

Network Director

Editorial remit

Internal network publication coordination, canonical linking, and correction propagation across owned outlets.

Authority

Can require canonical linking, can trigger mirror updates, and can pause internal mirroring when versioning is unclear.

Background

Coordinates network publication so the same correction notice and change log follows the dossier wherever it appears. Flags outdated mirrors and fixes propagation gaps quickly.

Disclosures

This role has no standing disclosures published on this page right now.

Editorial Governance

How our dossiers get published

We publish investigative dossiers that usually run from 15,000 to 40,000 words.
Every major claim is tied to records, direct reporting, or more than one check.
We write in plain words so readers can follow what happened without guessing.
When a claim is not proven, we label it clearly and explain what we do know.
Right of reply is built into the schedule, not added at the end as a formality.
Editors listed on this page own the decision trail when a dossier is released.
Our owned network publishes internally under shared standards and shared correction handling.
If a dossier is updated, readers should be able to see what changed and when.

If you cannot point to evidence, it does not belong in a dossier paragraph.

Editorial Authority Map

Approval ladder

Routine dossier: domain editor signs off on facts, structure, and proof labels.
Schedule control: Deputy Editor locks timing, readiness, and right‑of‑reply status.
Standards gate: Standards Editor can demand stronger sourcing or cleaner labeling.
High‑risk release: Editor‑in‑Chief decides publish, pause, or rebuild based on risk.
Key allegation with an unnamed source: requires Standards approval plus top‑level approval.
Primary documents: require safety and legal checks before attachments go public.
Redactions: require a reason that can be explained to readers in simple words.
Late-breaking evidence: may trigger a hold until the claim can be verified cleanly.
Corrections: applied to the canonical record first, then mirrored across owned outlets.
Disputes on the record: escalated until one accountable editor makes a final call.

If a decision is serious, it must have an owner and a written reason.

Decision table

Decision / risk area	Primary owner	Required co‑sign	Final sign‑off
Routine dossier publication	Dossier Editor	Deputy Editor	EIC (if flagged)
Anonymous source in key allegation	Dossier Editor	Standards Editor	EIC
High‑defamation‑risk jurisdiction	Deputy Editor	Legal & Risk Desk	EIC
Publishing primary documents	Dossier Editor	Legal & Risk Desk + Data Forensics	Deputy Editor / EIC
Redaction scope	Source Protection Desk	Legal & Risk Desk	Deputy Editor
Post‑publication correction dispute	Standards Editor	Deputy Editor	EIC (if unresolved)

The Dossier Workflow (Our Investigative Pipeline)

Steps readers can hold us to

Lead intake & triage: public interest, feasibility, safety, and whether the claim can be tested.
Investigation plan: claims map, evidence plan, right‑of‑reply plan, and a risk plan written down early.
Reporting discipline: consistent notes, clear timelines, and careful handling of sensitive material.
Verification: independent checks for key allegations, names, dates, and central events.
Right of reply: subjects are contacted with specific questions and a real deadline.
Editorial build: structure, clarity, proof labels, and reader‑first navigation.
Legal & jurisdiction review: publication limits, local law constraints, and court restrictions.
Security & harm review: source protection, safety redactions, and removal of risky file traces when needed.
Publication & propagation: canonical record published first, then internal mirroring follows.
Post‑publication watch: new evidence, reader challenges, and correction handling stay on record.

Reporting, verification, editorial shaping, and risk review are separated so one person cannot control the whole chain.

Dossier Format & Evidence Presentation

How to read a dossier here

Summary: the short version that still stays honest.
Findings: what we believe is true, and what proof supports it.
Methodology: how we worked, what we checked, and what we could not confirm.
Timeline: events in order, with dates that can be traced.
Entities map: people and organizations that matter to the case.
Evidence section: exhibits, citations, and record references.
Appendices: supporting material that helps readers verify details.
Change log: visible notes when something meaningful changes.

Proof labels and documents

Verified fact: supported by records, direct evidence, or strong corroboration.
Allegation: attributed to a named party, filing, witness, or source and labeled clearly.
Analysis: our reasoning based on evidence already shown.
Citations: footnotes or exhibit IDs that point to the proof behind a sentence.
Primary documents: published fully when lawful and safe, otherwise excerpted or redacted with a stated reason.
Redaction reasons: privacy, source safety, court restriction, or ongoing proceeding limits.

If an exhibit cannot be shown fully, we state why and we keep the meaning intact.

Standards & Ethics

What we commit to in investigative work

Conflicts of interest: we disclose or step back when a relationship can distort judgment.
Anonymous sources: used only when necessary and never as the only support for a serious claim.
Payments: we do not purchase allegations; any exception must be approved and documented.
Undercover methods: require approval, safety planning, and a clear public‑interest reason.
Leaked materials: verified first, then weighed for public interest and harm.
Vulnerable sources: extra protections when retaliation risk is real.
Tools and translation: any assistance must be checked by humans before publication decisions are made.

Read Standards

Legal, Jurisdiction, and Risk Review

Jurisdiction review is built in

We check defamation risk, privacy rules, and local restrictions before release.
We watch for injunction risk and contempt exposure in strict jurisdictions.
We remove unnecessary identifiers when they add risk but add no public value.
We do not publish doxxing or details that invite harm without clear public interest.
We keep a record of risk decisions so corrections are not handled by memory.
We publish with the strongest safe proof set, not with the loudest possible claim.

Legal & risk notices

If you dispute a passage, point to the exact section and provide records that support your claim.

For legal notices and representative contact
Include your name, authority to act, and the exact passages you dispute
Attach documents, and propose corrected wording if you want a correction

Corrections, Updates, and Versioning

What changes mean on this network

Correction: a factual error that changes the record.
Clarification: wording that was unclear or easy to misunderstand.
Update: new material added after publication that expands the dossier.
Editor’s note: context added when readers need a clear warning or explanation.
Dossiers require a visible change log when anything meaningful is revised.
Corrections are applied to the canonical dossier first and then mirrored across owned outlets.
If a mirrored copy is outdated, it should point back to the canonical record.
Readers can challenge claims by pointing to exhibits and providing counter‑documents.

Internal Network Editorial Model

One record, many owned outlets

Central standards apply across all owned outlets that publish our dossiers.
Headlines and layout can vary by property, but findings and meaning must not change.
The canonical record is the main reference point for updates and correction notices.
Some properties may publish heavier redaction when local rules require it.
When a correction happens, the goal is one truth, not many drifting copies.
Readers should be able to trace what changed without hunting across sites.

Contact The Editors

Role contacts

Investigations desk (tips and leads) Email
Standards and sourcing concerns Email
Corrections and record challenges Email
Reader questions about fairness and clarity Email
Formal complaints and accountability channel Email
Legal and risk notices for subjects or representatives Email

If you are disputing text, include the exact section name and the sentence you want reviewed.

Secure submission (simple steps)

If you can, avoid work devices and avoid work email for sensitive tips.
Send only what matters to the claim, not your whole archive.
Do not add extra private details unless they are needed for public interest.
Start with a short message: what it is, why it matters, and how to reply safely.
If you are unsure, ask the investigations desk to switch to a safer channel.
Keep your subject line specific so it does not get lost in noise.

Challenge, Evidence, and Canonical Version

How to Challenge a Dossier

State what is wrong in one clean sentence.
Point to the exact paragraph and the exhibit ID you are disputing.
Provide documents that support your claim.
Share your right‑of‑reply statement if you want it logged.
Send it to Corrections so it enters the official review path.

Evidence & Redactions Explained

An exhibit is a record linked to a claim, not decoration.
Redactions may protect privacy, source safety, or court restrictions.
We mark redactions so readers can see where material was removed.
If you request fuller access, state the public‑interest reason.
We document decisions even when the answer is no.

Canonical version

Every dossier has a version number so readers know what they are reading.
Every dossier shows publish date and last updated time.
Every meaningful change requires a visible change log entry.
Mirrored copies should point back to the canonical record when updated.
If you spot a stale mirror, report it so the record can be aligned.

Request More Information

If you want a clear explanation of our editorial process, the correction route, or the right contact for a sensitive matter, send one email and tell us what you need in plain words.

Request More Info

Hansajekalavya.ComHansajekalavya.Com