Editorial Standards & Ethics

BlackLeaf covers public systems — where money comes from, where it goes, and who does the work. These are the rules the work is held to. They are not aspirational; they are how each piece is built and what a reader is entitled to expect.

Every number is sourced

Every figure we publish cites a named, public source, and the underlying data table is available beneath the chart it feeds. When a number can't be verified against a nameable source, we leave it out rather than estimate. See our methodology for how sourcing and verification actually work.

Who writes, who is accountable

BlackLeaf's articles are AI-drafted under a documented method and reviewed by a human editor who is accountable for what is published. We disclose this on every asset, in full. Read the AI & accountability policy and the masthead.

We correct the record

Corrections are a structural feature, not an afterthought. Readers can flag any article; inaccuracy flags trigger a blind re-verification of the disputed claim, and the outcome is recorded. Right of Reply hosts responses from people and institutions we write about. If we get something wrong, tell us — that is part of the product.

Independence & conflicts

BlackLeaf is editorially independent and is not directed by any political party, government body, or commercial sponsor. We do not sell coverage, and advertising or funding relationships never shape what we report or how. Our ownership and funding are public.

Transparency by default

The point of BlackLeaf is that you don't have to take our word for it. Sources are named, data is shown, methods are written down, the AI authorship is disclosed, corrections are logged, and ownership is stated. If any of that is unclear on a given piece, that is a bug — email editor@blackleaf.app.