Skip to content
Fact-checking center Central Communications Service
Submit for review
KK RU EN

Evidence layer

Research and public data

A working surface for reporters, analysts and researchers: how the Center verifies claims, which standards inform the process and what can be learned from the published archive.

Published records
88
Fact checks
45
Named sources
8
Latest publication
2026-07-21

01

What supports the method

The Center combines editorial verification, source provenance, media forensics and transparent uncertainty. No single technical signal is treated as proof.

01

A claim before a narrative

The exact wording, author, date and context are fixed before interpretation begins.

02

Evidence hierarchy

Primary documents and direct data take priority; independent sources are used for corroboration.

03

Provenance is not truth

Metadata and Content Credentials can describe origin and edits, but cannot prove that a depicted event is truthful.

04

Uncertainty remains visible

Unsupported, contradicted and still unknown elements are recorded separately instead of being collapsed into a score.

Research question → method → boundary

Question Method and output What it does not prove
What kind of information disorder is this?Separate falsity, intent and harm; record misinformation, disinformation or malinformation as analytical context.Intent without evidence or a factual verdict by itself.
Where did the claim come from?Lateral reading, source history, publication date, archive copies and independent corroboration.That a reputable source is infallible.
Was the media altered or taken out of context?Metadata, reverse search, keyframes, visual consistency and provenance credentials.Truth from metadata alone; missing credentials are not proof of manipulation.
Is there a coordinated tactic or recurring pattern?Map observable tactics with DISARM vocabulary; compare timing, channels, wording and amplification.Actor attribution or coordination from similarity alone.

Reference standards and handbooks

IFCN Code of PrinciplesTransparency, sources and corrections EFCSN Code of StandardsEvidence-based public-interest fact-checking DISARM FrameworkA common language for influence-operation tactics C2PATechnical provenance and authenticity standard UNESCO handbookJournalism, verification and information disorder Verification HandbookPractical verification of user-generated content Information DisorderCouncil of Europe framework for falsity, intent and harm Debunking Handbook 2020Research consensus on correcting misinformation

02

What the public archive contains

These are live aggregates of published records in the selected content language. Videos can overlap an editorial type; verdicts count fact checks only.

Active months
12
Per active month
7.3
Latest 30 archive days
13
Latest 90 archive days
20

Recent periods are counted backwards from the latest publication in this language, so the snapshot remains reproducible.

Bulletins22 Video releases6 Fact checks45 Short posts10 Analysis11

Publication dynamics

  1. 7
  2. 8
  3. 9
  4. 3
  5. 5
  6. 8
  7. 7
  8. 15
  9. 4
  10. 2
  11. 8
  12. 9

Fact-check verdicts

False
34
Manipulated
3
Misleading
1
Insufficient evidence
7

Language coverage

Қазақша
120
Русский
88

03

Related open data and registries

These external resources broaden a study, but do not become Center verdicts automatically. Check jurisdiction, collection method, language coverage and update date before drawing conclusions.

Google Fact Check Tools APISearch published ClaimReview recordsCoverage depends on participating publishers and markup quality. GDELTGlobal news events and knowledge graphsMedia visibility is not public opinion or factual accuracy. DISARMStructured tactics of information manipulationA taxonomy supports comparison, not attribution by itself. Internet ArchiveHistorical copies of public web pagesAbsence from the archive is not proof that a page never existed. Common CrawlLarge-scale historical web corpusCrawl coverage is selective and requires reproducible query methods. EUvsDisinfo databaseDocumented disinformation cases and narrativesInstitutional scope and regional focus must be stated when reused.

04

Public evidence-card coverage

This is not an accuracy score. It shows how many published fact-check records expose each reproducibility field.

0% 0 / 45 · 0%
0% 0 / 45 · 0%
0% 0 / 45 · 0%
0% 0 / 45 · 0%
0% 0 / 45 · 0%

05

Use the data in your own work

Open the aggregate snapshot, download publication records or query the public API. Preserve the canonical URL, verdict wording, date and stated limitations when citing a record.