Investigative reporting: build a hypothesis that can fail
A sound investigation asks a testable question, seeks independent records and testimony, and leaves room for its first explanation to be wrong.
Define the claim
Write the central proposition and three observable facts that would support or undermine it. Separate leads, original documents and interpretations. Map affected people and who deserves a chance to respond. Before approaching a source, decide what personal data is genuinely needed and how you will protect it.
Build a reproducible timeline
Store each document with its date and provenance. Record what it shows and what it cannot show. Compare public records with first-hand accounts; two reports repeating one press release are not independent confirmation. Actively seek an alternative explanation. For numerical claims, keep the data and steps needed to reproduce the calculation.
Publish with a response path
Put specific allegations to the person or organization concerned with a reasonable opportunity to answer. Seek editorial and legal review where appropriate. Distinguish verified facts, responses and remaining questions. Prepare a correction route and continue protecting sensitive material after publication.
Try it
Investigate a small public decision: date, document, decision maker, effect and response. Build an evidence table linking every claim to a source and limitation. Ask an editor to try to disprove your conclusion.
Before publishing
Never publish an accusation from an unattributed screenshot alone.