Sacharchiv (sacharchiv.de) is committed to accuracy and transparency. This fact‑checking policy explains exactly what we verify, how we rank sources, how we treat unverified claims, and how we correct mistakes. Every article at Sacharchiv is fact‑checked before publication, and our readers are an essential part of keeping us accountable.
What do we verify and how?
We verify every factual claim that appears in our reporting – including statistics, dates, names, quotes, official statements, and references to laws or regulations. Before any piece is published, it undergoes a structured check against primary sources such as government records, press releases from Swedish authorities, peer‑reviewed studies, and direct interviews with named experts.
Our fact‑checking team, led by Anna Martin (Ansvarig för faktagranskning), follows a written protocol. Each claim is traced to its original source; secondary sources are used only when the primary is unavailable and are clearly marked as such. If a claim cannot be confirmed, the article either omits it or labels it as unverified (see below). No article is approved for publication without a signed‑off fact‑check sheet, and Chefredaktör Matthias Ziegler retains final authority over any disputed fact.
How do we rank our sources?
We maintain a clear hierarchy of source reliability, detailed on our Sources & Standards page. The top tier consists of official documents (Swedish government bills, Riksdag decisions, EU directives), peer‑reviewed academic research, and direct communications from named officials or institutions. Second‑tier sources include reputable news agencies (TT, Reuters, AFP) and established Swedish media whose own fact‑checking we can cross‑verify.
Third‑tier sources – such as anonymous leaks, social‑media posts, or advocacy‑group reports – are used only when they contain newsworthy information and are always accompanied by explicit caveats about their provenance. Editors and fact‑checkers are trained to assess source credibility on a case‑by‑case basis, and every article’s source list is retained for internal audit. Readers can consult the Sources & Standards page for the full taxonomy.
How do we handle unverified claims and rumours?
Any claim that cannot be traced to a reliable primary source is clearly labelled as “unverified” or “alleged” within the article. Rumours, speculation, or unconfirmed reports are never presented as fact. When we cover a breaking story with incomplete information, we include a prominent note stating the limits of our verification and update the article as soon as new evidence emerges.
If we publish a report that includes a rumour because it is itself newsworthy (for example, a false claim circulating widely in Swedish social media), we explicitly identify it as a rumour and explain why it is being reported. We do not repeat rumours without context, and we never amplify disinformation. Our editorial team trains regularly on identifying and handling manipulated media and coordinated inauthentic behaviour.
Who reviews sensitive or complex articles?
Articles that touch on controversial topics, national security, public health, or allegations of wrongdoing are reviewed by a Standards Lead before publication. That role is currently held by Anna Martin, who also oversees fact‑checking. In practice, this means that any piece flagged by the newsdesk as high‑risk – for example, reporting on a corruption investigation or a contested election result – is sent to Anna Martin for an additional layer of source verification and legal review.
The Standards Lead has the authority to hold publication, request further sourcing, or commission an external expert check. This process is documented and can be invoked by any editor or reporter. Chefredaktör Matthias Ziegler is copied on all Standards Lead reviews. The system is designed to catch blind spots and ensure that our journalism meets the same rigorous standard regardless of the topic.
What you can expect from us
Every article published by Sacharchiv has been fact‑checked by a named human editor. Our fact‑checkers do not rely on AI to verify claims; any AI‑assisted tools used in research are clearly disclosed (see our AI & Automation Policy) and never replace the judgement of a trained journalist. We correct errors promptly and transparently, and we label corrections clearly (see our Corrections Policy).
Our source hierarchy is public and consistently applied. We will never knowingly publish false information, and when we discover a mistake we treat it as a priority. Readers can expect a named contact for every correction and a clear explanation of what changed and why. We also publish an annual transparency report that includes a breakdown of corrections issued.
How can readers report errors or concerns?
If you spot a factual error, an unsubstantiated claim, or a potential breach of our sourcing standards, please contact our fact‑checking team directly at factcheck@sacharchiv.de. You can also use the general Contact page or write to Anna Martin at emma.sandberg@sacharchiv.de. All reports are acknowledged within one business day and investigated by the fact‑checking team.
We take reader reports seriously. If an error is confirmed, we update the article and publish a correction notice. For significant errors, we also issue a standalone correction article linked from the original piece. Our Corrections Policy explains the classification of corrections (minor, major, retraction) and the timeline for each. We also log all corrections in a public corrections register.
Questions or concerns?
If you have a broader question about our editorial standards, you can contact Chefredaktör Matthias Ziegler at anders.lindqvist@sacharchiv.de. For complaints about our fact‑checking process, please use our formal complaints procedure at /complaints-procedure/. You may also read our Editorial Policy and meet our team on the Our Team page. Sacharchiv is a publication of Sacharchiv Media Ltd., registered in Gibraltar (company number C 92009, Malta Business Registry ). Our registered office is Office 9, Business Centre, Valletta, 0000.