Verification Methodology
Every claim published on They Knew passes through a structured verification pipeline designed to eliminate speculation and ensure that only evidence-backed assertions reach our database. Below is a detailed breakdown of how the process works.
How We Verify Claims
- Initial Submission
A user submits a claim along with at least one supporting source. The submission must include the original date the claim was made, a clear description of what was predicted or asserted, and the primary source that later validated it. Submissions lacking a source are automatically rejected.
- Source Verification
Our system and moderators verify the authenticity and relevance of each submitted source. Links are checked for accessibility, archived via the Wayback Machine where possible, and cross-referenced against known databases. Sources are classified according to our Source Hierarchy (see below).
- Community Review
Verified submissions enter a community review period where registered users can upvote, downvote, flag, and comment. Users may provide additional supporting or contradicting evidence. This phase typically lasts 7 days but may be extended for complex claims.
- Moderator Decision
After community review, a moderator evaluates the claim, all submitted sources, and community feedback. The moderator assigns a final status (see Status Definitions below). Every decision is logged with a rationale.
- Ongoing Monitoring
Published claims are never considered permanently closed. New evidence can trigger a status review at any time. Users can submit update requests, and our team periodically re-evaluates claims in active categories.
Source Hierarchy
Sources are ranked by reliability. Higher-ranked sources carry more weight during verification. The hierarchy, from strongest to weakest:
| Rank | Source Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Government Admission | Official statement or report by a government body acknowledging the claim. |
| 2 | Declassified Document | Previously classified government or military documents released to the public. |
| 3 | Court Judgment | Ruling or finding from a court of law directly addressing the claim. |
| 4 | Congressional Hearing | Testimony or evidence presented before a legislative body under oath. |
| 5 | Peer-Reviewed Study | Research published in a peer-reviewed academic journal with reproducible methodology. |
| 6 | Investigative Journalism | Long-form investigation published by a credible news organization with named sources. |
| 7 | FOIA Document | Records obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests. |
| 8 | Expert Testimony | Statement from a credentialed expert in the relevant field, given publicly or under oath. |
Status Definitions
Every claim on the platform is assigned one of five statuses:
- Verified
- The claim has been confirmed by at least one high-ranking source (Rank 1–5). The evidence is strong, reproducible, and uncontested.
- Partially Verified
- Some elements of the claim have been confirmed, but the full scope remains unverified. Supporting evidence exists but does not cover all assertions.
- Under Review
- The claim is currently being evaluated. It has passed initial screening and is in the community review or moderator decision phase.
- Insufficient Evidence
- The claim could not be verified due to a lack of credible sources. It is not rejected outright — new evidence may trigger a re-evaluation.
- Debunked
- The claim has been conclusively disproven by credible evidence. Debunked claims remain on the platform for transparency but are clearly marked.
Status Change Rules
- Only moderators and administrators can change a claim's status.
- Every status change requires a written rationale and at least one supporting source.
- All status changes are logged in the claim's public audit trail, including the moderator's name, timestamp, previous status, new status, and rationale.
- Community members may request a status review by submitting new evidence through the update request system.
- A claim cannot be moved from "Debunked" to "Verified" without approval from at least two moderators and at least one Rank 1–3 source.