Developing·Case the developing record
Editorial rulebook · public standard

How we report a developing case

These are the rules every case file on this site is built to follow — without exception. They exist to protect two things at once: the accuracy of the record, and the dignity and rights of the people inside it. If a file ever breaks one of these rules, that's a mistake to correct, not a judgment call we made.

R1

Every fact names its source

Nothing appears as a statement of fact unless it can be attributed to a named, publicly available source — a police statement, a court filing, an official press release, or established news reporting. If we can't source it, it does not go on the page.

On the page — "The coroner positively identified the body. (source: NPR)"
Never — "The body was identified." (no source = withheld)
R2

No one is guilty of anything here

We never state or imply that a specific person committed a crime. People who have been charged are described using the exact status reported ("charged with," "arrested on suspicion of") and always attributed to the authority that reported it. Uncharged individuals are not named as suspects. Ever.

On the page — "Police have charged a 34-year-old man; charges are allegations and unproven. (source: county sheriff)"
Never — naming, hinting at, or building a theory around who "did it."
R3

Unknowns are labelled, not resolved

Anything not confirmed lives in the "open questions" section, clearly marked as unconfirmed. We do not fill gaps with inference, and we never let the arrangement of facts imply a conclusion the sources don't state.

R4

The people come before the traffic

These files involve the missing, the dead, and their grieving families. We honour requests for privacy, we don't publish graphic detail for effect, and we don't sensationalise. If a choice trades a family's dignity for clicks, we don't make it.

R5

Rumour and social posts are labelled as such

Information circulating on social media is not treated as fact. Where a widely-discussed claim originates from an unofficial post, we attribute it precisely to that post and mark it unverified — or we leave it out.

R6

Community input is moderated before it appears

Reader discussion is welcome for surfacing public information. It is moderated. We remove anything that names private individuals as suspects, spreads unverified accusations, or targets any person. No comment naming a private individual in connection with wrongdoing is ever published.

R7

Corrections are fast, visible, and logged

When something is wrong, we fix it promptly and note that the file was corrected. If a person we've mentioned is cleared, exonerated, or the reporting changes, the file is updated immediately to reflect it. Removal requests from affected individuals are taken seriously and reviewed quickly.

How each file is produced and verified

1 Live retrieval. An automated process queries current, published reporting using web-search-grounded AI — never a model's memory. Facts are drafted with a source attached to each one.
2 Source gate. The system rejects any drafted fact that arrives without a verifiable source citation. Unsourced material never reaches the draft.
3 Structure. Confirmed facts go to the timeline; anything unconfirmed is routed to "open questions" and labelled.
4 Human review. A person checks every claim against its source and confirms the file states no conclusion about any individual — before it publishes. This step is never skipped.
5 Publish and maintain. The file goes live and is revisited as new verified reporting emerges. Updates follow the same five steps.

This rulebook is public because our credibility depends on it. If you believe a file falls short of these standards, or you're personally affected by one, contact us and we'll review it promptly.