How Veridi Works
The short version
A claim comes in. Veridi classifies it by domain and complexity. It gathers evidence through structured searches. It evaluates each source and assigns it a quality tier. It checks for disinformation techniques. It applies decision trees to determine a verdict. It calibrates confidence against the strength of the evidence. It runs a quality-assurance checklist. It outputs an assessment that shows its reasoning at every step.
The process in detail
1. Claim classification
Every claim is categorized by domain - scientific, legal, medical, financial, electoral, historical, technological, or propaganda - and by complexity:
- Simple: Single verifiable fact, clear sources exist. Resolved directly.
- Moderate: Multiple sub-claims or requires context. Resolved with search, uncertainty flagged.
- Complex: Domain expertise needed, propaganda deconstruction required, or high stakes. Routed to a specialist framework.
2. Source hierarchy
Evidence is ranked on a four-tier system:
| Tier | Sources | Confidence ceiling |
|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | Government databases, peer-reviewed research, court records, raw authoritative data | 95% (with multiple sources) |
| Tier 2 | Wire services, established fact-checkers, credentialed experts | 80% |
| Tier 3 | General news media | 65% |
| Tier 4 | Social media, anonymous sources, partisan outlets | 50% |
The confidence ceiling is structural: a claim supported only by Tier 3 sources cannot receive confidence above 65%, regardless of how many such sources agree. Multiple low-quality sources do not substitute for one high-quality source.
3. Gaming countermeasure scan
Before any verdict is issued, the methodology checks for eleven documented disinformation attack patterns. These range from confidence laundering (multiple outlets tracing back to a single unreliable source) to institutional capture (a formerly authoritative agency whose output has been compromised by political interference). Each pattern has defined detection procedures and specific consequences for the assessment.
Detailed gaming countermeasures
4. Verdict determination
Veridi uses nine verdict categories:
| Verdict | Meaning |
|---|---|
| True | The claim is accurate |
| Mostly True | Accurate with minor imprecision that doesn’t change the takeaway |
| Mixed | Contains independently verifiable true and false sub-claims |
| Mostly False | Contains a true element but the core assertion is false |
| False | The claim is inaccurate |
| Misleading | Individual facts may be true but are assembled to create a false impression, and the false impression appears to be the purpose |
| Lacks Context | Important information is missing that would change the reasonable interpretation, but the omission appears incidental, not engineered |
| Outdated | Was accurate at time of original publication but is no longer |
| Unverifiable | Cannot be confirmed or denied with available evidence |
Verdicts are determined using decision trees designed to handle the most confusable distinctions - particularly Misleading vs. Lacks Context, and Mixed vs. Mostly False.
5. Confidence calibration
Confidence ratings reflect the strength of the evidence, not certainty about the verdict. A claim can receive a clear verdict (FALSE) with moderate confidence (75%) if the evidence is strong but sourced only from Tier 2.
The methodology also applies field reliability coefficients - disclosed annotations based on published replication rates - to provide context for claims in fields with known reproducibility challenges. A psychology claim and a physics claim supported by similar evidence will receive the same confidence rating, but the psychology assessment will note the field’s lower replication rate.
6. Quality assurance
Before an assessment is published, a checklist is completed covering evidence completeness, source independence, gaming countermeasure application, confidence calibration, and output format compliance. This is the last gate before the assessment goes out.
Verification depth
Four tiers of verification are available:
- Quick: Simple claims with clear answers. One authoritative source sufficient.
- Standard: Most claims. Multiple sources, structured search, gaming scan.
- Full: Complex or high-stakes claims. Specialist frameworks, comprehensive sourcing, full gaming countermeasure analysis.
- Forensic: Maximum rigor. Reserved for claims with significant public impact or legal implications. (This label is not intended to imply accreditation or licensing, which the system does not have in any jurisdiction.)
The methodology can auto-escalate: a claim submitted at Standard tier will be bumped to Full if gaming flags are detected during the initial scan.