Record the claim the source actually supports
A list of links does not show which sentence each source supports or whether the wording goes beyond the evidence. Give important claims identifiers and record the relevant passage or location. Keep a short note explaining the connection in your own words.
Check dates, geography, definitions and whether the source describes a proposal, an observation or a completed event. Those distinctions affect what a script can responsibly say. Where a claim relies on interpretation, identify that interpretation rather than presenting it as a direct statement from the source.
Copy a record for each consequential claim
Use the verification fields to make open work visible. “Needs checking” should identify what needs checking and who will do it. Preserve enough source detail that another editor can find the material even if the original link changes.
Keep source notes and publishable wording separate. A research note can be tentative; the final script needs to reflect what has actually been established at the time of review.
PROJECT / SCRIPT VERSION:
CLAIM ID / SCENE OR PARAGRAPH:
EXACT DRAFT CLAIM:
SOURCE TITLE / PUBLISHER OR ORIGIN:
SOURCE URL OR FILE LOCATION:
PUBLICATION DATE / DATE ACCESSED:
RELEVANT PASSAGE / PAGE / TIMECODE:
WHAT THIS SUPPORTS:
LIMITS - DATE / PLACE / DEFINITION / UNCERTAINTY:
ADDITIONAL VERIFICATION NEEDED:
EDITOR / REVIEW DATE:
STATUS - VERIFIED / OPEN / OMITTED:
APPROVED SCRIPT WORDING:
CORRECTION OR UPDATE HISTORY:Worked illustration with an imaginary timetable
This is a fictional planning example, not a report about an actual transport service. The source remains a placeholder and the claim cannot be treated as verified until real evidence is entered. The distinction demonstrates how to prevent a draft assumption from becoming published fact.
The revised wording stays within the imagined document’s scope and avoids claiming that all passengers benefit from the change.
Review the log when the script changes
When a sentence is strengthened, shortened or moved, check that the supporting evidence still matches its meaning. A careful qualification can disappear during editing and leave a broader claim behind. Review images and graphics for implications the words do not make.
Before publication, recheck time-sensitive material and unresolved entries. If a correction becomes necessary, record the reason, affected claim and production versions that need attention. Keep the previous wording in the history so the team can understand what changed without confusing it with the current approved script.
Questions & answers
Does every sentence need a separate entry?
Prioritise consequential factual claims, disputed points and information a reviewer may need to verify. Group closely related claims only when the same evidence supports each without obscuring important differences.
Can I mark a source reliable and stop there?
No. Evaluate whether the specific material supports the specific claim, with the relevant context and date. A generally useful source can still be misread or used for a claim outside its scope.
Explore the workflow with your own idea.