When faced with an article or a dossier, the first question is not "is it true?" but "how do we know?". A serious investigation always lays out the chain that links a claim to its proof. When that chain is missing, you are not reading an investigation: you are reading a staged opinion.
A primary source is the original document: an official report, an archive, a raw dataset, a first-hand account. A secondary source comments on the primary source. Be wary of chains where each party cites the previous one without anyone ever showing the original — this is how rumors that look like facts are born.
A document has an author, an institution, a date, a context. A 1998 report says nothing about the situation in 2026. An internal memo does not carry the status of an official decision. Precisely identifying what you have in front of you avoids 90% of misreadings.
Information confirmed by several sources that do not depend on one another gains in solidity. Beware of the false cross-check: ten media outlets picking up the same news wire amount to only a single source.
A fact is verifiable; an interpretation is a choice of meaning. Both are legitimate, but they must not be confused. A good dossier clearly separates "here is what is established" from "here is what we deduce from it".
Note the references. A claim without a consultable reference is not admissible: it asks you to believe, not to verify. This is precisely the rule we apply to every dossier in the collection: each sensitive assertion points back to its source.
This is the very purpose of our editorial method — and of each of our documented investigations.
Accueil · Collection · Journal · Dossiers · Sources