What an Editorial Review Actually Checks

A finished draft reads as a single continuous argument, which is exactly why it's hard to review from the inside. An editorial verification review takes it apart into its component pieces and checks each one on its own terms, before the piece goes anywhere near publication.

The first step is unglamorous: go through the text line by line and list every factual assertion separately from the narrative around it. Names, dates, figures, attributed statements, descriptions of events — each becomes its own item, stripped of the surrounding prose that makes it feel more certain than it might be.

Matching evidence to assertion

Once the list exists, each item needs its supporting material recorded next to it — not summarised from memory, but pointed to directly: a document, a recording, a named and contactable source. Where the supporting material is thinner than the confidence of the wording suggests, that gap gets flagged, along with a suggested phrasing that matches what can actually be shown.

Checking the record of comment

A review also looks at whether people or organisations named critically were given a fair and documented chance to respond. It's not enough that an approach was made; the review checks whether it was made with enough notice and specificity, and whether the record of that approach — dates, questions sent, any reply received — is kept somewhere retrievable.

None of this changes the argument of the piece. What it does is make sure the argument rests on ground the reporter can point to, item by item, if it's ever challenged after publication.