How claims are assessed

How fact-checkers assess a public claim

Q: Does every fact-checker use a rating scale?

No. PolitiFact uses a six-point scale and Africa Check uses named verdicts. Full Fact gives a summary of claims and conclusions at the top of each article.

Last checked 6 November 2026 · 7 sources

Short answer

Professional fact-checkers pick claims by reach and public interest, collect evidence from primary sources, ask the person or body that made the claim for its evidence, and have a second person review the work before publication ^1,2. The IFCN Code asks signatories to apply the same standard to every claim and to show evidence that supports and undermines it ³. The European EFCSN Code asks for at least two sources for the central claim where possible and review by an editor other than the author ⁴.

Main global code: IFCN Code of Principles, launched in September 2016 ⁵
Main European code: EFCSN Code of Standards, approved in the summer of 2022 ⁴
Burden of proof at PolitiFact: On the speaker who made the statement ¹
Review before publishing: Three editors vote on each PolitiFact rating ¹. Full Fact has a second researcher review each piece ²
Minimum sources (EFCSN): At least two sources for the central claim where possible ⁴

Step one: choosing which claims to check

Fact-checkers do not check every statement. The IFCN Code asks signatories to choose claims mainly by their reach and importance, to explain the choice where possible and to publish a short statement on how claims are selected ³.

Full Fact in the United Kingdom says it focuses on public-interest claims and gives priority to those with the most potential to cause harm to people's lives. Its core areas include crime, immigration, health and the economy ². The EFCSN Code asks members to focus mainly on public-interest topics and to give the public a channel to submit claims ⁴.

Step two: gathering and weighing evidence

The codes ask for evidence that a reader could follow and repeat. The IFCN Code asks signatories to identify the sources of all significant evidence, with links where available, to prefer primary sources and to check key elements of a claim against more than one named source where possible ³.

The EFCSN Code sets similar rules. Members must support every pertinent factual statement with evidence, including evidence that undermines the claim. They must use at least two sources for the central claim where possible, prefer primary sources, name sources except where their safety is at risk and establish the credibility of quoted experts ⁴.

Full Fact says it links to primary sources for all factual assertions wherever possible and aims for at least two sources supporting the central claim ².

Step three: asking the claimant

The codes and outlets cited here ask the fact-checker to contact the person or body behind the claim. The IFCN Code asks signatories to contact the claimant to seek supporting evidence where possible, without letting a lack of reply stall the check ³. Full Fact says that, where the source of a claim is not obvious, it tries to contact the claimant to ask about their source ².

PolitiFact places the burden of proof on the speaker. It rates statements on what was known at the time they were made ¹. Africa Check rates claims against the best evidence publicly available at the time the claim was made ⁶.

Step four: review and the verdict

The final judgment is a group decision at many outlets. The table below shows the review step described by three fact-checkers and one standards network.

Organisation	Review step	Form of verdict
PolitiFact (United States)	Reporter proposes a rating. Three editors discuss it and vote, and two votes decide ¹	Six-point Truth-O-Meter from True to Pants on Fire ¹
Full Fact (United Kingdom)	Another researcher reviews everything before publication ²	Summary of claims and conclusions at the top of each article ²
Africa Check	A lead researcher and two editors debate the rating and vote when they do not agree ⁶	Seven labels from Correct to Incorrect, plus Checked for multiple claims ⁶
EFCSN members (Europe)	At least one editor other than the author reviews each investigation ⁴	Members must publish their rating system if they use one ⁴

Step five: publishing, markup and corrections

Many fact-checkers publish their verdict in machine-readable ClaimReview markup. Google's documentation says the claim being assessed must be attributed to a distinct origin separate from the fact-checker's own website, and the site must have a corrections policy or a way for users to report errors ⁷. Google says it is phasing out support for ClaimReview in Google Search. The markup remains supported by its Fact Check Explorer tool ⁷.

Corrections are part of the method. The IFCN Code asks signatories to correct mistakes openly so that the original audience can see the correction ³. The EFCSN Code asks members to publish a corrections policy and a record of corrections ⁴. Full Fact says that when politicians or journalists get something wrong, it asks for the record to be corrected ².

Common questions

Who decides the verdict in a fact-check?

It depends on the outlet. At PolitiFact a reporter proposes a rating and three editors vote on it, with two votes deciding ¹. Under the EFCSN Code at least one editor other than the author must review each investigation ⁴.

Do fact-checkers contact the person who made the claim?

The IFCN Code asks signatories to contact the claimant to seek supporting evidence where possible ³. Full Fact says it tries to contact the claimant to ask about their source where the source is not obvious ².

Does every fact-checker use a rating scale?

No. PolitiFact uses a six-point scale ¹ and Africa Check uses named verdicts ⁶. Full Fact gives a summary of claims and conclusions at the top of each article ².

Can a fact-check be wrong and corrected?

Yes. The IFCN Code requires an open and honest corrections policy ³, and the EFCSN Code asks members to explain how a substantial error occurred ⁴.

Rules and charges change. Check the official source linked on this page before you pay or travel. Spotted an error? Email hello@theclaimregistry.com.

Sources

Fact-check rating scales compared
What True, Mostly True, Half True, Misleading, Unproven and Pants on Fire mean at PolitiFact, Africa Check and others, and why some checkers use no scale.
The IFCN Code of Principles explained
The five IFCN commitments for fact-checkers, how signatories are assessed and renewed, the US$350 fee, and how it compares with the EFCSN code.
ClaimReview markup explained
What the schema.org ClaimReview type is, its required fields, Google's eligibility rules, and Google's phase-out of ClaimReview in Search in 2026.