Fact-Checking Policy

BazaarBaazi's fact-checking discipline is structured around the type of claim. The standard for a price quotation differs from the standard for a regulator-attribution. This page documents the framework and the workflow.

The four claim categories

• Quantitative claims (prices, percentages, amounts, counts): require a primary public source. We do not publish a number that cannot be reproduced from an exchange filing, a regulator notice, an audited statement, or a credentialed wire-service report.
• Attributed claims (a quote, a position attributed to a person or institution): require either a public-record document or an on-the-record conversation we can name. Anonymous attribution requires identity verification by the editor-in-chief.
• Identification claims (a person, a company, a location, a date): cross-checked against the primary corporate or regulatory record where the entity is named.
• Interpretation(this number means X for the following reason): the editor's read on the facts. Not subject to a fact-check in the same way a number is, but the underlying premises are. The verdict block is interpretation; the body is facts and interpretation, both clearly distinguishable.

Pre-publish workflow

1. The desk lead writes the brief. The brief lists named sources, primary documents, and the angle. A claim that cannot be sourced at brief stage does not enter the draft.
2. The first draft is written. Every quantitative claim carries an inline source reference visible to the editor.
3. The copy desk runs the draft through structured checks: em-dash strip, headline-vs-body alignment, JSON-LD validation, link-check against named sources.
4. The editor-in-chief reads the draft, verifies one randomly chosen quantitative claim against the primary source, reads the verdict block against the body for overstatement, and signs off.
5. On publish, the source-list is preserved in the per-story log for audit.

Post-publish monitoring

Where a published claim is challenged by a reader, the editor-in-chief re-runs the source check. Where the original source still supports the claim, the response to the reader cites the source. Where the check fails, a correction is published per the corrections policy.

Cross-vertical fact-checking

BazaarBaazi covers four desks. A story that crosses vertical lines (e.g., a defence-PSU IPO, a smallcap getting weekly options) is co-checked by both desk leads. The editor-in-chief is the deciding authority on what survives the cross-check.

External fact-check engagement

Where a claim is referred to BazaarBaazi by an external fact-checking organisation (PIB Fact Check, Alt News, Boom, Factly, etc.), we engage on the merits. The publication does not contest fact-check rulings on procedure; we either accept the correction and publish a public note, or we present the original primary source and ask for a rerun.

Continuous improvement

Each material correction triggers a small post-mortem: where in the workflow did the error survive, and what control would have caught it. The output is a quarterly internal review of the fact-checking framework. Where the review surfaces a structural fix (e.g., a new cross-check, a new source-line convention), it is added to the editorial policy and the change is logged in the changelog at the foot of editorial policy.