Transparency & Accountability Policy
Transparency & Accountability Policy
1000+ investigative news outlets and 25000+ media properties operating under one transparency and accountability standard
We are an investigative organization that publishes long, evidence-led dossiers. We often work on hard topics, powerful players, and stories that cross borders. If we want readers to trust our record, we have to do more than write well. We have to show the rules we follow, how we stay fair, and what people can do when they disagree with us.
This page explains, in plain words: who we are, how money is handled, how a dossier is built, how we treat sources, how we offer a right of reply, how we fix mistakes, how versions are tracked inside long investigations, how republication works across a large network, and how to challenge a claim if you think we got it wrong.
Network Brands — Continuous Rotation
Hover = pause
Our mission
Public-interest investigations that can be checked
We publish investigations for the public. We focus on stories where the truth is argued over, buried on purpose, or split across many places. We go after high-impact matters where primary records and careful verification are not optional.
Our scope
Topics our dossiers may examine
- Corruption, procurement, and contracting abuse.
- Corporate wrongdoing and financial fraud.
- Influence operations, disinformation networks, and covert public relations.
- Organized crime and cross-border facilitator networks.
- Human rights abuse and environmental crimes.
- Regulatory evasion, shell structures, and money flows that hide the real owners.
- Failure or misuse of public institutions and governance systems.
What we do not do
No pay-to-start reporting
We do not take money to open an investigation, to close one, or to aim it at a target chosen by a payer.
What we do not do
No sponsor-written editorial
We do not publish sponsor-controlled reporting as if it were independent investigative work.
What we do not do
No trade for outcomes
We do not swap editorial conclusions for access, favors, payments, or side deals.
Primary format
A dossier is a record, not a quick headline
Our main publishing format is the investigative dossier. A dossier is built so readers can question it. It is structured, sourced, and meant to be tested against documents, timelines, and public records.
Typical length is not small. Minimum length is around 15,000 words, and many dossiers run far beyond that when the evidence trail is long.
Typical structure
Common components inside a dossier
- Executive summary with key findings and why they matter.
- Scope and methodology notes, so readers know what was covered.
- A claim-by-claim narrative supported with evidence.
- Timelines, entity maps, and relationship analysis when needed.
- Evidence index and repository links where lawful and responsible.
- Right-of-reply outreach summary and any responses received.
- Limits, uncertainties, and open questions we could not close.
- Appendices: data notes, FOI logs, definitions, legal letters when appropriate.
- Version history and a corrections ledger so changes stay visible.
How to read responsibly
Clear labels for what is known and what is claimed
Dossiers can contain verified facts, allegations that are clearly marked, and analysis that is clearly marked. We do not mix them and pretend they are the same thing.
Reader standard
Enough evidence to judge major claims
We aim to show enough proof so a careful reader can decide whether a major claim is strong, weak, or still uncertain.
Separation
Editorial and revenue do not merge
Editorial calls are made by editorial leadership and the investigations desk. Funding partners do not decide what we investigate, what we conclude, or what we publish.
No control
Supporters do not get veto power
- Supporters do not approve drafts.
- Supporters do not select targets.
- Supporters do not block publication.
Disclosure
Funding context may be noted when it matters
When a funding relationship could reasonably affect reader trust, we may disclose context so the audience can weigh it with open eyes.
Network scale
Distribution size does not dilute responsibility
Our work can appear across thousands of properties. The scale is wide, but accountability stays narrow. The canonical record remains our responsibility, and republication follows integrity rules.
Canonical record
One master version remains the source of truth
When there is a conflict between copies, the master version is the reference point for updates, corrections, evidence links, and version history.
Legal entity
Who operates this network
- We operate under one legal entity.
- Legal name: Ekalavya Hansaj, Inc.
- Jurisdiction: United States Of America And India.
- Registered address: 180 Sansome ST STE 200 San Francisco CA 94104.
- Primary domain(s): Available at url app23513.cloudwayssites.com/sister-news-brands
Governance & leadership
Named roles
- Publisher: Ekalavya Hansaj, Inc.
- Editor-in-Chief: Ekalavya Hansaj
- Managing Editor (Dossiers): Andrea Schuller
- Standards Editor: Teresa Jossy
- Legal Director: Angie Wright
- Security lead: C. R. Chandran
- Forensics editor: Agatha Wilmer
Standards Editor
Keeps the rules current
The Standards Editor maintains and updates our standards and ethics policies so the rules do not drift over time.
Standards Editor
Reviews high-risk dossiers
Sensitive work is reviewed for sourcing hygiene, clear labels, fairness steps, and whether outreach documentation is complete.
Standards Editor
Handles complaints and corrections flow
Standards concerns are received, sorted, and escalated when needed. Corrections handling must be visible and tracked.
Scale
One investigation can travel far
Our media network includes 1,000+ investigative outlets and 25,000+ media properties. They may distribute, republish, translate, excerpt, or reference our dossiers.
Canonical source
What the master version controls
- Latest updates.
- Corrections and clarifications.
- Evidence repository links.
- Version history.
Provenance labels
How a reader should see the origin
- Produced by Ekalavya Hansaj (we controlled reporting and editing).
- Co-produced with Network Outlets (shared reporting and editing responsibilities).
- Republished from Ekalavya Hansaj (under integrity rules).
- Translated from Ekalavya Hansaj (translation integrity rules apply).
Republication integrity rules (minimum)
What republishers must preserve
- Core meaning and legal qualifiers like “alleged” and “according to filings.”
- A visible canonical link to the master version.
- Corrections and updates must remain intact.
- No new factual claims inside the dossier text unless clearly labeled as an editor’s note with date and sourcing.
- Right-of-reply summaries and responses where included.
- Evidence references, citations, exhibit IDs, and repository links.
Corrections propagation
When a dossier changes
When we correct or materially update a dossier, we update the canonical page and the version history so the record stays consistent.
Partner notice
Mirroring major fixes
Where feasible, we notify republishing partners through a partner channel so major republishers can mirror corrections quickly.
Accountability
Scale is not an excuse
Distribution size does not weaken standards. If the work is ours, the responsibility is ours.
How we are funded
Possible sources of support
- Reader contributions and memberships.
- Grants and institutional support.
- Licensing and syndication arrangements.
- Events and training.
- Limited advertising (if any; always labeled).
Major supporters
Default is public naming
We name major donors publicly. A current list is available here: https://app23513.cloudwayssites.com/institutional-supporters/
If a supporter has a real safety or legal reason for privacy, we may list them in an anonymized category. Our default for major support remains disclosure.
Safeguards
Money does not buy outcomes
Funding does not buy review rights, editorial control, or veto power. A donor cannot “sponsor” a target or steer conclusions.
Disclosure inside dossiers
Context when trust depends on it
If funding context could reasonably affect perceived impartiality, we may disclose it inside the dossier so readers are not kept guessing.
Advertising / sponsored material
Clear labels, hard separation
- Advertising is labeled “Advertisement.”
- Sponsored content, if any, is labeled “Sponsored” and separated from investigative editorial.
- We do not publish “native advertising investigations.”
7.1 Scoping and hypotheses
What we define before heavy reporting
- The investigative questions we are trying to answer.
- Jurisdictions and time periods covered.
- Key people, entities, intermediaries, and systems involved.
- What would count as sufficient evidence for major claims.
- What would weaken or falsify the working hypothesis.
7.2 Evidence acquisition plan
Where evidence is pursued
- Primary documents: contracts, filings, court records, procurement records, registries.
- Interviews: on-the-record, background, anonymized when necessary.
- Data analysis: structured and unstructured datasets.
- OSINT and digital verification when relevant.
- Field reporting when feasible.
- FOI and public-records requests where applicable.
7.3 Claim-to-evidence mapping
Internal discipline for major assertions
- Claim statement.
- Evidence references (document IDs, exhibit numbers, interview logs).
- Confidence level and limitations.
- Counterevidence and competing explanations.
- Notes on what remains uncertain.
7.4 Drafting and internal review
Typical checks before publication
- Editorial review for structure, clarity, and relevance.
- Standards review for sourcing hygiene, labeling, and fairness.
- Verification review for dates, figures, identities, quotes, and translations.
- Legal review when risk warrants.
- Security review when source or staff risk exists.
Evidence repositories
How readers can verify key points
- A public evidence repository (documents, exhibits, datasets, or excerpts) and/or
- An evidence index with citations and exhibit references.
Redactions
What may be withheld or removed
- To protect a source or vulnerable person from harm.
- To avoid publishing private personal data without a strong public-interest reason.
- To avoid exposing security details that raise immediate risk.
- To comply with lawful court orders or reporting restrictions.
- To reduce harassment, doxxing, or retaliation risk.
When we redact
How we do it
- Redact as little as possible.
- Mark redactions clearly (example: “[REDACTED – personal data]”).
- State the reason category: privacy, safety, or legal limits.
Authenticity practices (high level)
Integrity checks when material is sensitive
For sensitive digital material we may use integrity checks, metadata review, and provenance checks. We do not claim perfection. If limits exist, we say so.
Data-driven claims
What we try to include
- Data origin and retrieval dates.
- Method summary: cleaning, filtering, and matching logic.
- Key assumptions and error rates when measurable.
- Replication notes or a sample dataset when lawful.
Named sources preferred
Major claims should not float
We prefer named sources and primary documentation for major claims whenever it can be done safely and responsibly.
Anonymous sources (case-by-case)
When anonymity may be granted
- The source faces credible risk of retaliation, violence, legal jeopardy, or job loss.
- The information is strongly in the public interest.
- We can corroborate key points with documents or independent sources.
What we disclose
Context without exposing identity
When we protect a name, we still try to explain the source’s relationship to the events, how we checked the claims, and what we could not verify.
What we do not do
No anonymity for bad faith
- We do not grant anonymity to spread known falsehoods.
- We do not hide propaganda or undisclosed agendas behind “anonymous.”
- We do not use anonymity to dodge accountability.
Paying sources
No payment for information
We do not pay for information. In rare cases we may reimburse reasonable expenses tied to safe document transfer, documented internally.
Verification standards
How we aim to keep claims clean
- Primary documentation for central claims.
- Independent corroboration where disputes are expected.
- Clear labeling of what is verified vs. alleged vs. inferred.
Fact-checking practices (typical)
What gets cross-checked
- Names, dates, titles, and corporate identities.
- Quotes against notes or recordings where available.
- Figures against source documents, recalculated when needed.
- Translations reviewed by competent speakers when relevant.
- Media verification checks when images or media are part of evidence.
Legal review (when warranted)
What triggers extra legal scrutiny
- Defamation risk level and involved jurisdictions.
- Privacy and data protection concerns.
- Court proceedings or reporting restrictions.
- Use of leaked or sensitive material.
Important line
Legal review informs risk framing
Legal review helps us reduce harm and state limits. It does not buy, block, or rewrite editorial outcomes for comfort.
Our policy
A meaningful chance to respond
When we make allegations or serious adverse findings about identifiable people or organizations, we offer a real opportunity to respond.
What “meaningful” means
What we aim to provide
- The relevant allegations or findings in enough detail.
- A reasonable response window scaled to complexity and urgency.
- A way to submit documents and rebuttals.
- A commitment to publish or accurately summarize responses.
When outreach may be limited
Reasons we may delay or narrow pre-publication contact
- Credible risk of evidence destruction.
- Credible risk of witness intimidation.
- Credible risk of source exposure or harm.
- Legal restrictions.
Publishing responses
How responses may appear
- Full responses when they are concise and relevant.
- Summaries with links to full statements.
- Verified excerpts when responses are extremely long or include unrelated personal attacks.
If pre-publication contact is limited, we still offer a strong post-publication right of reply and update where needed.
Why version control exists
Long investigations evolve
Dossiers are long and can change when new evidence appears. That is exactly why version control is required. Changes must be visible, dated, and explained.
Definitions
What each term means
- Correction: fixes a factual error that changes meaning.
- Clarification: adds context without changing the underlying facts.
- Update: adds new reporting, evidence, or responses.
- Retraction: removes a material claim or the entire dossier due to fundamental unreliability.
How corrections appear
Visibility is part of trust
Each dossier should include a visible Corrections & Updates panel near the top for major changes, plus a detailed Version History section near the end.
Corrections process
What usually happens
- Request received by email or corrections channel.
- Triage by the Standards Editor and relevant editors.
- Evidence review and a decision, including counsel when needed.
- Canonical page updated with time and change description.
- Partners notified of major changes when feasible.
When we are wrong
We correct it and keep the trail
If we make a substantive factual error, we correct it prominently and preserve the record of change in the version history.
Disclosure requirement
What must be disclosed
- Financial interests: employment, consulting, investments.
- Close personal relationships with subjects.
- Prior paid work for a subject or an adversary.
- Active political roles relevant to coverage.
- Litigation or disputes with subjects where relevant.
Recusal and disclosure
How conflicts are handled
Recusal may be required for reporting, editing, or standards calls. When needed, a disclosure note may be included in the dossier so the reader is not left in the dark.
Co-productions
What must be disclosed
- Partner organizations.
- High-level division of responsibility.
- Shared correction responsibilities.
Republishing terms
Minimum obligations
- Attribute clearly and link to the canonical version.
- Preserve meaning, qualifiers, and right-of-reply sections.
- Preserve correction notices and version history links.
- Maintain evidence references or equivalent linking.
Excerpts and adaptations
No misleading context
- Excerpts must not remove qualifiers in a way that changes meaning.
- Excerpting must not create a false impression.
- Adaptations must be labeled as adaptations.
Translations
Minimum translation integrity rules
- Preserve legal qualifiers and uncertainty language.
- State that the piece is a translation and name the translator/outlet.
- Link to the canonical original.
- Update if the canonical version is corrected materially.
Integrity point
Readers must be able to trace the chain
If a dossier moves across outlets, the origin and the canonical link must stay visible so the reader can trace what changed and what did not.
Limited support use
Tools may assist, but do not replace accountability
- Transcription assistance.
- Translation drafts that are human-reviewed.
- Document search, clustering, and deduplication.
- Data processing assistance that is human-validated.
Publishing guardrail
No unverified machine-made factual claims
We do not publish machine-made factual claims without human verification and editorial responsibility. If a tool materially assisted a workflow, we may disclose that in methodology notes.
Why it matters
Investigations create real-world risk
Investigative work can create risk for sources, staff, and partners. We use operational practices like risk assessments, secure contact options, controlled document access, and safety planning for harassment or retaliation.
Public detail limits
We avoid publishing a blueprint for adversaries
We may limit public detail about security measures because oversharing can make it easier for hostile actors to target people involved.
Personal data minimization
We avoid exposing private details without strong reason
We avoid publishing private personal data unless it is essential and strongly justified by public interest. We do not publish personal addresses, IDs, or contact details just because we have them.
Vulnerable persons
Extra care is applied
- Minors.
- Victims of violence or exploitation.
- Non-public individuals not central to wrongdoing.
- Witnesses and whistleblowers.
Sensitive material and leaks
What we evaluate
- Authenticity and provenance indicators.
- Public interest value.
- Potential harm to innocents.
- Whether to quote, summarize, or publish with redactions.
Harm reduction
Care is a standard, not a mood
We are tough on wrongdoing, but careful with people who can be harmed by careless exposure. That balance is part of responsible investigative publishing.
How to file a complaint
Send these details
- The URL of the dossier.
- The exact text you dispute (quote it).
- Why it is inaccurate, unfair, or misleading.
- Supporting documents if you have them.
- The remedy you want: correction, clarification, or right of reply.
Where to send it
Corrections email
Email: corrections@hansajekalavya.com
What you can expect: acknowledgment within 3 business days, and a substantive response target of 10 business days. Complex disputes may take longer, and we will give status updates where feasible.
Why we do this
Long work must still be navigable
Because dossiers are long, we aim to make them easier to follow, easier to search, and easier to challenge in good faith.
What we aim to include
Navigation aids
- Executive summary and key findings.
- Clear headings and anchored table of contents.
- “What we know / what we don’t know” sections when relevant.
- Downloadable PDFs when feasible.
- Evidence indexes and repository links.
- Glossaries for specialized terms and entities.
Accessibility feedback: accessibility@hansajekalavya.com
Editorial contact
Email list
- General: general@hansajekalavya.com
- Editorial desk: Editors@hansajekalavya.com
- Standards Editor: standards@hansajekalavya.com
- Corrections: corrections@hansajekalavya.com
Secure tips / whistleblowing
Channels
- SecureDrop: https://app23513.cloudwayssites.com/securedrop/
- Secure Tips: https://app23513.cloudwayssites.com/tips/
- Encrypted messaging: Signal Username @hansaj.02
- Postal submission: 180 Sansome ST STE 200 San Francisco CA 94104
Public policy library
Links
- Publishing Principles: https://app23513.cloudwayssites.com/publishing-principles/
- Transparency: https://app23513.cloudwayssites.com/transparency
- Editorial Ethics: https://app23513.cloudwayssites.com/editorial-ethics/
- All Policies: https://app23513.cloudwayssites.com/policies/
- AI policy: https://app23513.cloudwayssites.com/ai-training-terms/
- Security guidance for sources: https://app23513.cloudwayssites.com/securedrop/
- Institutional supporters / donors: https://app23513.cloudwayssites.com/institutional-supporters/
Policy record
Version details
- Effective date: June 22, 2026
- Version: v29.0
- Canonical owner: Editorial Standards Office
- Final editorial authority: Ekalavya Hansaj
Escalation contacts
Where to write
- Contact for standards: standards@hansajekalavya.com
- Contact for corrections: corrections@hansajekalavya.com
- Contact for legal escalation: legal@hansajekalavya.com
- Contact for security escalation: security@hansajekalavya.com
CTA
Tips
If you have documents or a lead, use the tips channel so the right desk sees it faster: https://app23513.cloudwayssites.com/tips/
CTA
SecureDrop
If your situation is sensitive, use SecureDrop: https://app23513.cloudwayssites.com/securedrop/
CTA
Principles
If you want the plain rules we publish by, read Publishing Principles: https://app23513.cloudwayssites.com/publishing-principles/
Email Editors
If you have a standards concern, a correction request, a right-of-reply submission, or a serious question about how a dossier was built, email our editors. Put the dossier link in the subject line so it can be routed quickly.