Fact-Check & Corrections
If you find an error, let us know. We aim to respond within 24 hours.
Our Fact-Check Process
Every PRISM article passes through these stages before publication: (1) An AI persona drafts the piece by synthesizing coverage from multiple outlets and primary sources. (2) An automated quality gate checks for factual verifiability, source attribution, and numerical accuracy. (3) Articles scoring 60-79 are revised through a self-critique chain. (4) The PRISM editorial team (Editor-in-Chief Jeongjin Lee) performs final review.
All numerical claims appear with their source. Analysis and interpretation are explicitly labeled ("PRISM's reading is...") to keep them distinct from reported fact.
What We Trust
Primary sources first: official statements, press releases, papers, government and regulatory documents, public filings.
Reputable secondary outlets as supporting context: TechCrunch, The Verge, Reuters, Bloomberg, NHK, Asahi Shimbun, Yonhap, SCMP, and similar. We do not cite a single secondary source; at least two outlets must corroborate.
Cautious framing: anonymous sources, unverified social media posts, and stakeholder-only claims are presented with attribution and distancing language ("reportedly...", "sources said...").
How to Request a Correction
If you've found an error, email [email protected]. Include the following to speed things up:
(1) Article URL, (2) the specific passage in question (quote or location), (3) what fact is wrong, (4) where possible, a link to the correct source.
Verified errors are corrected within 24 hours. The correction note appears at the bottom of the article with a "Correction" label, specifying what was changed and how.
Our Transparency Commitment
We silently fix minor typos and grammar. But factual changes, numerical changes, and quote changes are always disclosed with a correction note.
Which AI persona wrote the article and which editor reviewed it is always visible on the article page.
