Transparency
Methodology over headlines.
AI Incidents separates observable facts, editorial assessment, and unverified claims. Every published record links to its evidence.
Concrete event
A record needs a clear time reference, an affected organization or technology, and a describable impact.
Credible sources
At least one primary or authoritative source is required. For disputed or severe claims, we aim for two independent sources.
Clear separation
Observation, interpretation, and unverified claims are stored separately and shown as distinct information.
Versioned review
Confidence, verification status, first observation, disclosure, and last review remain traceable as separate fields.
Editorial workflow
From signal to published incident
- DiscoveredA possible incident is recorded as a candidate, not published.
- TriagedRelevance, event scope, and possible duplicates are reviewed.
- EvidencedSources support specific claims while uncertainty remains visible.
- ApprovedPublication requires a documented editorial review.
- UpdatedCorrections and new sources transparently update the versioned record.
Required fields
Confidence is not a truth score
The confidence value describes the current strength of a record's evidence. It replaces neither sources nor editorial review and must not be read as the probability that a headline is true.
- verificationStatus
- Working state from demo or needs evidence through verified, corrected, or withdrawn.
- sourceType
- Primary source, authority, research, secondary source, or clearly marked demo source.
- lastReviewedAt
- Time of the latest editorial review, not the event date.