Partnerships for long-form investigations
Partner with Ekalavya Hansaj
Partnerships built for long-form investigations and dossier publishing.
1000+ investigative outlets, 25,000+ media properties, and working labs for film, audio, data, and interactive exhibits.
This page is for serious collaborations where facts come first and the work can stand in public. If you want a light mention, a paid write-up disguised as reporting, or quick content trading, you will not find a fit here. We publish dossiers that usually run 15,000 to 40,000 words, with documents, exhibits, timelines, and clean sourcing.
Network Brands — Continuous Rotation
Hover pauses the loop
Editorial independence
Partners do not buy coverage, steer conclusions, or hide facts. If a claim cannot be backed, it does not go in.
Security-first collaboration
We use careful contact paths, tight access rules, and calm handling for sensitive work that could put people at risk.
Verifiable evidence chain
Documents, exhibits, and sourcing are treated like a file that must survive questions, audits, and legal pressure.
Relationship definition
This is a dossier pipeline, not a typical newsroom handshake
When we say “partner,” we mean someone who can work inside an evidence-first routine. Our biggest output is a long dossier with exhibits, timelines, and plain explanations that can be checked by any reader who wants to verify the story. The work is slow on purpose because the goal is durability, not speed.
A partner is not expected to agree with our opinions. A partner is expected to respect the process: verify, document, correct, and publish without hiding key facts. That is what keeps the work useful when powerful people try to distract or intimidate.
We define the relationship in writing before the investigation gets busy. We agree on who owns which evidence, who can publish which parts, and what gets held back until verification is finished. We do not “soft launch” claims just to test reactions. We do not outsource fact-checking to the audience. We do not confuse access with accountability, and we do not reward sources for drama. If a partner finds an error, we treat it as a required fix, not as a personal attack. If a partner cannot commit to that discipline, we would rather say no early than break the evidence chain later.
Collaboration models
Choose the lane that matches what you can truly do
- Dossier-first publishing: 15k–40k word investigations with documentation, exhibits, and timelines.
- Co-reporting: shared reporting plan, shared standards, and clear roles.
- Co-publishing: joint release with aligned fact-check and a clean embargo rule.
- Translation and localization: same evidence, different language editions.
- Distribution: controlled republication where rules are followed and attribution is not watered down.
- Data analysis and forensics: careful handling of files, sources, and claims.
- Production: documentary cuts, audio series, visual investigations, and interactive timelines built around the dossier.
Partner types
Editorial partners
Investigative outlets that can report, verify, and publish. These partnerships involve shared evidence standards and shared responsibility for accuracy.
Partner types
Distribution partners
Publishers who help the dossier reach new audiences without stripping context. This lane is strict about attribution, edits, and republication terms.
Partner types
Research, data, production, and support
Researchers, OSINT specialists, labs, studios, legal advisors, safety teams, archivists, and forensics partners who strengthen the evidence and protect people.
Pathway
Co-reporting partnerships
Two teams, one investigation plan, and one evidence standard that stays steady when pressure rises.
- Who it’s for: reporters and editors with time for real field work and real verification.
- What we provide: partner matching across the network, dossier structure, exhibit planning, and release coordination.
- What we require: named editorial lead, documentation discipline, and respect for embargo rules.
- Typical timeline: 3–16 weeks depending on the topic and risk.
Pathway
Co-publishing / dossier collaborations
A shared release that keeps the story whole: the text, the exhibits, and the timeline all move together.
- Who it’s for: outlets ready to publish long-form work with clear sourcing.
- What we provide: final fact-check alignment, exhibit hosting options, and edition planning for different regions.
- What we require: corrections readiness, right-of-reply discipline, and a clean disclosure posture.
- Typical timeline: 2–10 weeks from intake to release planning.
Pathway
Syndication / republication
Controlled republishing for dossiers where accuracy and context must survive the trip to a new audience.
- Who it’s for: publishers who follow rules and keep attribution intact.
- What we provide: approved excerpts, translation permission routes, and adaptation guidance for different formats.
- What we require: case-by-case approval for edits, plus a clear link back to the evidence set.
- Typical timeline: 3–14 days once the dossier is published.
Pathway
Research, data & forensics
This lane exists for people who can break down messy information into something provable and readable.
- Who it’s for: data teams, OSINT researchers, archivists, and document specialists.
- What we provide: scoped questions, evidence handling expectations, and publication integration into the dossier.
- What we require: source care, clean citations, and repeatable methods.
- Typical timeline: 1–8 weeks depending on volume and sensitivity.
Pathway
Content labs & studios
When a dossier needs film, audio, visuals, or an interactive timeline, this is where the craft happens.
- Who it’s for: documentary teams, editors, designers, developers, and audio producers.
- What we provide: story structure, verified material, release sequencing, and distribution lanes.
- What we require: respect for evidence limits and clear review checkpoints before release.
- Typical timeline: 3–20 weeks depending on format and approvals.
Pathway
Safety, legal & risk partnerships
This lane supports reporters and partners who need calm, prepared help when the work triggers threats.
- Who it’s for: legal reviewers, safety teams, crisis responders, and risk advisors.
- What we provide: pre-publication review windows, documented decisions, and escalation contact routes.
- What we require: confidentiality discipline and clarity about what can be shared and when.
- Typical timeline: continuous, with extra focus near publication.
Non-negotiables
Vetting exists to protect the work and the people in it
We do not run pay-to-play coverage, and we do not publish sponsored dossiers that pretend to be independent investigations. If money is involved in any way, it must be labeled clearly and kept separate from editorial conclusions.
Evidence is not a vibe. It is documents, records, interviews, and proof that can be checked. If a partner cannot support claims with material that holds up, we pause, cut the claim, or stop the project.
Corrections are handled like adults: visible, specific, and fast. Right-of-reply is treated as a real step, not a token email sent five minutes before publication.
Minimum requirements
Simple gates that prevent the wrong kind of inquiry
- Named editorial lead who can say yes or no without chaos.
- Ability to respect embargo and legal review timing when the story is sensitive.
- Secure communication capability for serious material.
- Agreement to publishing standards, attribution rules, and conflict disclosures.
If you already know your team cannot meet these basics, it is better to email us for a smaller distribution-only relationship than to start a co-reporting project that collapses mid-way.
Contact options
Safe ways to reach us
For normal partnership requests, email is fine. For sensitive collaborations, use the secure contact route so the first message does not expose people who should stay unknown.
- Email partners desk for standard outreach.
- Request secure contact for high-risk topics.
Data handling
Calm rules that prevent panic later
We keep access tight, share only what is needed, and avoid spraying sensitive files across too many inboxes. When partners join a case, we define who can see what, and we stick to that.
If material is risky, we plan the handling steps before the real reporting begins. That reduces mistakes when the deadline gets close.
Escalation
When journalists are threatened
If a partner faces intimidation, harassment, or credible danger linked to a project, we prioritize safety decisions over publishing speed. The goal is to keep people alive and able to work again.
Use the secure contact request to begin that conversation without turning a sensitive issue into a public mess.
Typical workflow
A step-by-step routine built for dossiers
Step 01
Intake
You send a pitch and we label the risk level so the next steps match the reality.
Step 02
Fit + matching
We check if the topic belongs in a dossier, then match the right partners across the network.
Step 03
Roles + plan
We write down who reports, who verifies, who edits, and who owns each part of the evidence.
Step 04
Evidence review
Fact-check, documentation review, right-of-reply, and legal review happen before assembly.
Step 05
Dossier assembly
We build the dossier with exhibits, appendices, timelines, and a clean reader path.
Step 06
Publish + editions
We release together, then create localized editions, translations, or excerpt routes where approved.
Step 07
Studios plug in
Visuals, documentary edits, audio series, and interactives are produced around the verified file.
Step 08
After release
We track impact, handle corrections, update exhibits, and follow the story where it leads.
Partner
Indian Investigations
Indian Investigations is built for patient digging. Their team is good at turning rumors into records, then turning records into a story that makes sense on the first read.
We work together when a case crosses borders, languages, or legal zones and the evidence needs careful handling instead of loud takes.
Partner
Senate Today
Senate Today tracks power where decisions are written down. They watch votes, committees, closed-door moves, and the quiet paperwork that changes lives.
We collaborate when a dossier needs a clear map of who approved what, when it happened, and how the rulebook was bent.
Partner
The Architecturer
The Architecturer is a lens for the built world: contracts, permits, builders, and the money trail behind “public projects.” They spot patterns that most people miss because they only look at the final building.
We join forces when the story lives inside drawings, approvals, land records, and the hidden cost of infrastructure.
Partner
Financer Mag
Financer Mag explains money without hiding behind jargon. They take balance sheets, deals, and funding routes and translate them into simple cause-and-effect.
We work together when a dossier needs the “follow the money” part to be clean, provable, and easy for any reader to understand.
Partner
Public Voters
Public Voters focuses on elections as a chain of small actions: rules, lists, funding, messaging, and ground pressure. They care about how power is gained, not how it is marketed.
We collaborate when we need to show, step by step, how public choices were shaped and who benefited from the setup.
Partner
Institutionaliser
Institutionaliser reads institutions the way engineers read machines. They look for broken controls, loopholes, fake oversight, and the moments where a system stops protecting the public.
We work together when the story is not one villain, but a structure that makes wrongdoing easy and accountability hard.
Case study 01
Public procurement rigging inside a hospital build
Partnership mode: co-reporting plus document analysis with a construction-focused partner.
Outputs: a 31,000-word dossier, 48 exhibits, a clean timeline, and two localized editions.
Impact: a formal audit announcement, a tender review, and public release of key contract schedules.
Case study 02
Committee pressure that flipped a quiet policy clause
Partnership mode: co-publishing with legislative watchers and an editor-led review lane.
Outputs: a 18,700-word dossier, annotated voting records, and a simplified explainer for new readers.
Impact: a public hearing scheduled and a written response issued by the responsible office.
Case study 03
Offshore routing that hid a conflict of interest
Partnership mode: research and forensics partnership with financial interpretation support.
Outputs: a 27,400-word dossier, a flow chart of entities, and a public dataset of company links.
Impact: a compliance inquiry opened and multiple disclosures updated after publication.
Case study 04
Voter list anomalies tied to a contractor network
Partnership mode: co-reporting plus distribution partnerships for rapid public reach.
Outputs: a 22,900-word dossier, region-by-region tables, and an audio briefing edition.
Impact: independent verification efforts started and a corrective review announced by local officials.
Case study 05
A whistleblower file that needed calm handling
Partnership mode: secure intake, limited-access review, then co-publishing with strict timing.
Outputs: a 34,600-word dossier, redacted exhibits, and a visual timeline that kept names safe.
Impact: multiple resignations reported and a public inquiry request filed by civil groups.
Case study 06
Documentary cut built from a verified exhibit set
Partnership mode: studio collaboration after the written dossier locked its facts.
Outputs: a 16,200-word release file, a 26-minute film cut, and an interactive evidence index.
Impact: widespread citation, new tip inflow, and a follow-up dossier commissioned by partner outlets.
Distribution value
Network reach without losing meaning
If a dossier is strong, we can route it through multiple nodes with clear edition rules so the story stays intact while the audience grows.
Research value
Support that strengthens the file
Partners can access help with OSINT checks, archive pulls, document organization, and evidence packaging so the dossier becomes easier to verify.
Production value
Labs that convert evidence into formats people finish
When the written file is complete, studios can adapt it into film, audio, visuals, or interactive timelines without breaking the evidence chain.
Safety and legal
Prepared help when the topic is dangerous
Partners can use structured review windows and risk planning so publication does not become a scramble. This matters most when threats, lawsuits, or harassment are likely.
Credibility protection
Standards-driven publishing that holds up
When the public pushes back, a dossier survives by being specific, documented, and consistent. That is the value of a process that does not cut corners.
Tier
Core investigative partners
These partners co-report, co-verify, and co-publish. Editorial decisions stay editorial, even when the story is inconvenient.
Tier
Publishing & syndication partners
These partners help dossiers travel, with firm rules around edits, excerpts, and attribution so the reader gets the full context.
Tier
Research / OSINT partners
These partners add strength to the evidence: data checks, source mapping, archive work, and proof validation done with care.
Tier
Production partners (studios / labs)
These partners turn verified work into formats that travel farther: film, audio, visuals, and interactive exhibits that remain accurate.
Tier
Institutional support partners
These partners support the ecosystem with legal readiness, safety planning, training, forensics support, or archives. Support is not editorial control.
Clarification
Money does not buy conclusions
Financial support, when it exists, is handled separately from editorial decisions. A partner can fund infrastructure and still lose an argument in the reporting.
FAQ
Do you accept exclusive investigations?
Sometimes, but only when exclusivity does not block verification or public interest. If an exclusive demand harms the evidence process, we will refuse it.
FAQ
Can we publish excerpts instead of the full dossier?
Yes, when the excerpt does not remove key facts or mislead readers. Excerpts must still point to the full evidence set and preserve the core context.
FAQ
What are your republication terms?
Republication is controlled and approved case-by-case. We decide based on edits, attribution quality, translation accuracy, and whether the evidence remains reachable.
FAQ
Do you translate dossiers, and who owns the translations?
Translation can be done through partners. Ownership and reuse rules are agreed in writing before publication so there is no confusion later.
FAQ
How do you handle corrections and disputes?
Corrections must be specific, visible, and tied to the exact claim that changed. Disputes are handled through evidence review, not through intimidation or vague denials.
FAQ
How do you handle source protection and leaked materials?
We limit access, avoid unnecessary sharing, and plan handling steps before moving fast. If a leak creates danger, safety choices come first.
FAQ
What is your editorial independence policy?
Editorial decisions are not for sale. Partnerships do not include the right to soften language, hide evidence, or force conclusions.
FAQ
Typical timelines for review and publication?
Timelines vary by risk and the amount of verification needed. Most projects move through intake, planning, evidence review, and assembly before any release date is locked.
Start with one message
Tell us who you are, what you want to build, and what proof you already have. If the topic is risky, keep details light and use secure contact for the next step.