Network Standards
Editorial, Investigations & Network Guidelines
A federated network of independent brands operating under one investigative standard
We publish long-form investigative dossiers across a federated network of brands. Every outlet and media property in our network has its own identity, but all publication must follow one shared standard of proof, safety, fairness, transparency, and independence. Dossiers are evidence-led, publicly documented through a document repository, and governed by a visible corrections and updates record.
These Guidelines describe editorial and operational standards. They do not provide legal advice. We publish globally and must account for differing legal regimes. When jurisdiction-specific questions arise, we must escalate to counsel under the Legal and Jurisdictional Readiness section.
Our Network Brands — Slow Rotation
Hover pauses
How the network works
One standard, many independent brands
We run a federated investigative network with more than 1,000 investigative outlets and more than 25,000 media properties. Each outlet and property is its own brand. Every brand must follow these Guidelines to publish, share, translate, sell, or repost our work.
Why we exist
Dossiers that push accountability
Our mission is to publish evidence-based investigative dossiers that support reform and public integrity. We focus on power, money, control, harm, and cover-ups. We do not trade verification for speed, and we do not chase daily-news noise.
Core format
Every major report is a dossier
- Minimum length: 15,000 words for any major dossier
- Long dossiers may run 40,000 words or more when needed
- Extra length can include appendices, exhibit lists, and response records
- Nothing important gets squeezed into a short post
Support materials
Tools that help readers check the work
- Timelines that show sequence instead of guesses
- Entity maps that show who connects to whom
- Money-flow visuals that show movement and links
- Document libraries and datasets when publishing is safe
- Method notes that tell readers how we checked key claims
- Follow-up updates when new facts arrive
Accuracy first
Big claims need hard support, not vibes or hype.
Traceable proof
A reader must be able to follow the path from claim to source.
Fair shot to respond
When safe and practical, we ask the subject and log the answer.
Reduce harm
We publish what matters and block what creates needless danger.
Real security
Sources and staff deserve protection built into the process.
No outside control
Money, politics, and partners cannot steer outcomes.
Visible corrections
When we fix an error, the record stays easy to find.
Global risk mindset
We publish worldwide, so we plan for cross-border trouble.
Required block
Cover metadata block
- Title that matches the proof and does not overstate certainty
- Publish date and time with timezone shown
- Update date and time with timezone when changes happen
- Byline and roles, shared only when safe
- Canonical dossier link for the master record
- Links to methods, exhibit library, response log, and corrections log
- Disclosures when money, ties, or conflicts are relevant
Required block
Executive summary
- Plain summary that a kid can read without getting lost
- Why this matters for the public and for reform
- Time window covered and places involved
- What the proof is made of, in simple words
- Response snapshot: who answered, who refused, who stayed silent
Required block
Scope and definitions
- What we cover and what we leave out
- Simple definitions for legal, money, and tech terms
- Clear non-claims that stop readers from guessing wrong
Required block
Methodology and standard of proof
- How we gathered and checked information
- How we handled doubt, gaps, and limits
- What we could not confirm, stated plainly
- Data notes when numbers are used
Required block
Findings section
Findings must be broken into clear parts that people can read without fatigue.
- Each finding states the claim in one clean line
- Each claim points to exhibits and sources
- Alternatives are addressed instead of ignored
- Confidence level is explained in plain terms
- Impact and reform meaning is spelled out
Required block
Right of reply and response log
- Dated outreach record with channels used
- Questions sent, or a fair summary of them
- Answers shown fairly and with context
- Non-response recorded with deadlines offered
Required block
Ethics and harm note
- Public-interest reason for publishing
- What we hid or removed and why
- Extra care steps for vulnerable people
Required block
Exhibit repository link and index
- Public repository link for supporting exhibits
- Index that lists exhibit IDs and short descriptions
- Notes that explain redactions when used
Required block
Corrections and updates block
- Reserved space for corrections, updates, and retractions
- This section stays in place on every brand that republishes
- Readers must not hunt for fixes
Rule
Canonical record
One master site hosts the main dossier record. Every other brand must link back to that master record so readers can verify the definitive version.
Allowed
Permitted adaptations
- Layout and navigation changes for local readers
- A labeled local context section that adds background, not new allegations
- Translation with quality control and high-risk review
Not allowed
Prohibited adaptations
- No hiding methods, responses, exhibits, corrections, or disclosures
- No rewriting that makes proof look stronger than it is
- No fresh allegations without network review and approval
- No removing doubt statements or careful limits
Partners
Partner and affiliate republication
Partners can republish only if they keep disclosures, response details, exhibit links, and correction notices. If the master record changes, partners must pass the correction forward inside the correction window.
Reader clarity
One story, one source of truth
A reader should not see seven different versions of the same claim. The canonical record stops confusion and blocks quiet edits.
Authors and lead investigators
- Keep a claim list so nothing “floats” without support
- Link serious claims to exhibits, data, or named sources
- Log outreach attempts and save proof of contact
- Flag legal, safety, and privacy risk early
- Provide a verification packet before final edit
- No promise of anonymity without the protection path
- No asking for illegal access or wrongdoing
Reporters and journalists
- Keep notes as you go, then store them safely
- Mark what you saw versus what you think it means
- Record interview terms clearly every time
- Follow safety steps set by risk checks
- No harassment, threats, or pressure tactics
Researchers and data analysts
- Write down where data came from and what rules apply
- Track cleaning steps so results can be checked
- Avoid cause-and-effect talk unless the method truly supports it
OSINT analysts
- Save URLs, dates, and archives so work can be rechecked
- Write down how you verified location and time when it matters
- State uncertainty instead of hiding it
- Use lawful collection methods only
Fact-checkers and verification team
- Work independently at the final verification step
- Check names, dates, numbers, quotes, and translations
- Keep a worksheet tied to the claim list
- Stop publication until issues are fixed or clearly limited
- Escalate high-risk disputes to editors and legal
Editors
- Enforce dossier structure and proof thresholds
- Cut insinuation and demand clear wording
- Keep headlines aligned to the real strength of evidence
- Push for right-of-reply when safe and possible
- Coordinate with verification, security, and legal as needed
Editor in Chief
- Protect independence across every brand in the network
- Approve high-risk dossiers and withheld bylines
- Set the correction culture and enforce propagation
- Decide publish, delay, or hold back when safety requires it
Bureaus, desks, and brand leads
- Apply these rules locally without weakening them
- Review sensitive translations before release
- Escalate when local laws increase risk
- Push corrections across properties inside the network window
Press and communications
- Never hype conclusions beyond what the dossier supports
- Link to the canonical record and its exhibits
- No draft sharing unless Editor in Chief and legal approve
Contributors and freelancers
- Sign standards, secrecy terms, and conflict disclosures
- Use secure channels for sensitive material
- Accept verification checks and correction duties
Advisors and experts
- Disclose ties, funding, and conflicts that matter
- Keep contributions in a record we can audit
- No editorial control through expertise
Supporters and community
- Support is welcome, control is not
- Tips are accepted through secure paths
- No doxxing, threats, or targeting of staff or subjects
Sponsors, partners, affiliates, associations
- No influence on investigative targets or outcomes
- Keep labels and disclosures when distributing content
- Follow embargo terms when they exist
Investors and leadership
- No directing coverage to protect interests
- Route risk concerns through legal or security channels
- Declare conflicts and step back when conflicted
Disclosure requirement
If money, work, politics, or close ties could bias judgment, it must be disclosed before work continues.
Mitigation
When a conflict exists, we use recusal, reassignment, extra review, or public disclosure when credibility needs it.
Gifts and benefits
Staff and contributors do not take gifts beyond small nominal value unless documented and approved.
Claim map
Every serious claim gets an ID, a label, and a link to its support so review is clean and fast.
Evidence ledger
We log where evidence came from, how it was obtained, where it is stored, and who can access it.
Sensitive chain-of-custody
Original files stay preserved, access stays limited, and every change is tracked; contested material goes to legal and security.
Meaning of verified
A claim is verified when the checking steps are written down, the evidence meets our bar for risk, and any uncertainty is shown in the text.
Public evidence support levels
- Primary and auditable: official records, authenticated filings, direct recordings, first-party data
- Corroborated: strong secondary support plus independent confirmation
- Partial or single-source: usable only with clear limits and higher review
- Unverified: never published as fact; used only as a lead to investigate
Corroboration baseline for severe allegations
For high-severity wrongdoing claims, we require more than one independent support line, or strong primary records plus independent confirmation. Rare exceptions require Editor in Chief and legal approval, with limits written clearly.
Quotes and translation checks
- Quotes backed by recordings, transcripts, or strong notes
- High-risk translations reviewed by a second competent reviewer
- No anonymous sourcing used to “clean up” weak proof
OSINT provenance
OSINT claims keep capture time, archive links when possible, and the steps used to verify.
Geolocation and timing
When place or time is central, we write down how we checked it and we name the limits.
Data analysis
Numbers come with method notes and caveats; when safe, we share enough detail for audit.
Who must receive right of reply
Any identifiable person or organization facing serious negative findings should be contacted before publication, unless doing so creates danger, breaks lawful limits, or would ruin a safe investigation step.
Outreach and response handling
- Outreach explains the issue clearly and asks specific questions
- Response window matches severity and complexity
- Responses are shown fairly and not chopped to mislead
- Credible error claims trigger re-check and correction
Security baseline
Sensitive work uses secure communication and storage, with access control and encryption.
Threats and intimidation
Threats are logged and escalated; verified reporting does not get rewritten to satisfy bullies.
Anonymous bylines for life-risk only
A withheld byline is allowed only when a real, specific threat exists, and leadership approves controls.
Approval and controls
- Editor in Chief and security approve with a written risk check
- Identity known internally on a strict need-to-know basis
- Public note explains the byline is withheld for safety
- Verification and fairness rules stay fully intact
Safety is not a marketing trick
We do not hide names to look dramatic. We hide names only to stop harm.
Transparency commitment
We keep a public exhibit repository so readers can inspect the backbone of key claims.
Redaction principles
- Remove private details that do not serve public interest
- Hide addresses, contact details, and sensitive identifiers
- Protect minors, victims, and vulnerable people
- Block details that enable retaliation or wrongdoing
Redaction integrity
Redactions must be permanent, with notes describing the type of removed material; originals stay secured for audit and lawful review.
Withholding or removal
If new safety or legal risk appears, we may pull an exhibit; when safe and lawful, we note that a removal happened and give a plain reason.
Language discipline
We separate fact, analysis, and allegation, and we show uncertainty when it exists.
Headline discipline
Headlines and promos never pretend we know more than we can prove.
Visual integrity
Charts cite sources, show units, avoid misleading scale tricks, and explain methods when needed.
Core rule
Sponsors never control investigative dossiers, targets, findings, or editorial decisions.
Definition of sponsored content
Sponsored content is any content or placement given in exchange for money or anything of value, including barter and commissions.
Separation from investigations
- Sponsored work follows a separate workflow
- Investigative staff cannot be forced into ad production
- Paid pieces must not look like an independent dossier
Mandatory disclosure and labeling
- Clear paid label near the top, not buried
- Sponsor name shown, not hinted
- Disclosure shown on web, feeds, previews, and newsletters
- Affiliate link disclosure placed near the first affiliate link
Format placement requirements
- Web: disclosure above or directly below the headline
- Newsletters: label shown before the sponsored item
- Social: disclosure in post text when feasible
- Video: visual label and spoken label when feasible
- Audio: spoken disclosure for each sponsored segment
- Events: sponsor shown on materials and announced when feasible
Prohibited sponsor influence
- No choosing targets or steering findings
- No draft review demands for investigative work
- No veto rights and no quiet suppression requests
- No edits traded for money or sponsorship
Claims and substantiation
Paid content cannot make false or unproven claims; regulated topics require proof before publishing.
Privacy and tracking
If sponsored material collects data, it must say so clearly, and sponsor scripts must be reviewed for safety.
Political and advocacy sponsorship
Policy or election advocacy must be labeled with extra clarity and must not pretend to be investigative reporting.
Corrections and disputes in sponsored content
If a paid piece contains a serious mistake, we fix it visibly; if a sponsor refuses correction, we revise or remove the misleading claim.
Global publication posture
Because anyone can read our work anywhere, we write high-risk claims using the most defensible wording that fits the proof.
Mandatory legal escalation triggers
Legal review is required for severe allegations, high litigation risk, national security sensitivity, conflict exposure, minors, and sensitive private data.
Highest-risk approach
When the law is unclear or risky, we tighten language, increase documentation, and add safety mitigations when lawful.
Corrections
Corrections state what changed, when it changed with timezone, why it changed, and whether conclusions moved.
Updates
Updates are labeled as updates; we do not quietly rewrite material facts.
Retractions
If core findings cannot stand, we retract while keeping a public record that the work was published.
Network correction propagation requirement
All owned outlets, properties, and republishing partners must apply canonical corrections and updates within 72 hours of issuance. Fixes must remain visible and reasonably prominent.
How to report an error
Email corrections@hansajekalavya.com with the dossier link, the exact claim you dispute, and any supporting documents you can share.
Review process
We review credible challenges, re-check disputed claims, and publish a correction or update when needed; threats are escalated to security and legal.
Auditability
The Editorial Standards Office can audit compliance, including claim lists, evidence logs, response logs, redactions, and correction propagation across brands.
Enforcement
Violations lead to proportional action: training, removal, suspension, termination of contributor relationships, or distribution limits when needed.
Secure tips
Use the secure tip path for sensitive tips. If you are in immediate danger, contact local emergency services first.
- Tips page: https://app23513.cloudwayssites.com/tips/
- SecureDrop: https://app23513.cloudwayssites.com/securedrop/
Partnerships and republication
Email partners@hansajekalavya.com; republication must keep canonical links, disclosures, and the 72-hour correction propagation rule.
Press inquiries
Email press@hansajekalavya.com; we do not provide drafts, but we do provide canonical dossier links and correction histories.
Document record
- Effective date: June 22, 2026
- Version: v29.0
- Canonical owner: Editorial Standards Office
- Final editorial authority: Ekalavya Hansaj
- Standards contact: standards@hansajekalavya.com
- Corrections contact: corrections@hansajekalavya.com
- Legal escalation: legal@hansajekalavya.com
- Security escalation: security@hansajekalavya.com
Email editors for standards questions or serious leads
If you found a mistake, have documents, or need clarity on how we verify and correct work, email the editors. If your message is sensitive, use the secure tip paths listed above.