Method

We work to deliver content of quality that is worth the reader’s time. Every analysis we produce is presented alongside what would disprove it, and alongside what we could not reach.

What would disprove us

Each published analysis carries a short list of facts that, should they occur, would show the reading we put forward was inaccurate.

We insist that these be verifiable facts. “The situation may develop differently” protects the writer and gives the reader nothing, so it is the kind of ambiguous statement we avoid — because we get things wrong too.

What we are unsure of

It is impossible to hold every fact and detail in hand for each analysis, so we prefer to point at where our imprecision lies: sources we read through someone else’s coverage rather than in the original, data we do not have, content the news outlet did not make available, and so on.

Corroboration

We apply criteria to confirm that the facts in our content are true, such as coverage across multiple news outlets when it falls within a publication window.

Trade and exposure

When we say an event weighs on a country, that weight is calculated from the trade data between the two, not estimated. We state the cut we used and our figures, so you can redo the arithmetic.

Confidence

We rate each analysis on a scale from 0 to 1, and record the reason for that number. It does not measure quality: it measures how much of the reading rests on observed fact and how much on inference of our own. We publish once the rating reaches a level we are satisfied with.

Caveats

We do not provide real-time coverage, we do not give investment advice, and we do not make forecasts.