Editorial Policy

Independence

We accept no editorial direction from funders, governments, or commercial interests. Our reporting serves our mission and audiences. No funding relationship influences our ratings, analysis, or publication decisions. A project cannot buy a favorable rating. Revenue comes from access and service, not favorable treatment.

Accuracy

Rigorous fact-checking with multiple source verification for significant claims. Prompt correction of errors. evidence archive evidence systems ensure documentation integrity. All evidence cited in reports includes source references where applicable.

Balance

Fair representation of diverse perspectives on contested matters. Parties subject to criticism receive opportunity to respond before publication. We do not manufacture false equivalence, but we ensure due process.

Community Voice

Affected communities are sources and partners, not just objects of reporting. Community perspectives are weighted heavily in our assessments.

Verification Standards

Specific factual claims require multiple independent sources. Allegations against identified parties require verification to appropriate evidentiary standards. Draft assessments are shared with rated entities for response before publication.

Corrections

Errors are corrected promptly and transparently. Corrections are noted on original publications. Material corrections are communicated to newsletter subscribers.

Source Pack

This page is maintained against institutional source categories rather than anonymous aggregation. Factual claims should be checked against primary disclosures, regulator material, development-finance records, official datasets, company filings, or recognized standards before reuse.

Editorial use: figures, dates, ownership positions, financing terms, capacity claims, and regulatory conclusions are treated as time-sensitive. Where sources conflict, this site prioritizes official documents, audited reporting, public filings, and independently verifiable standards.