VIDEOTRUTHS / OUR STANDARDS
How we check claims.
A clear process, visible evidence, and room to change our conclusions.
Our process
- Select a video containing meaningful actionable claims.
- Watch or analyze the original content, preserving context.
- Identify claims that could materially affect a viewer’s decision.
- Research those claims and their practical implications.
- Prefer primary evidence, such as official documentation and pricing.
- Look for evidence that both supports and challenges the claim.
- Separate factual errors from reasonable differences of opinion.
- Identify material omissions that matter to someone acting on the advice.
- Publish the evidence, conclusion, and relevant uncertainty.
- Correct material errors when warranted.
What the labels mean
Reliable evidence supports the specific claim.
The central claim holds up, with limited qualifications.
Important missing context could change a viewer’s decision.
The wording or presentation creates a materially inaccurate impression, as explained by the cited evidence.
The available evidence does not adequately support the claim. This is not automatically proof that it is false.
Reliable cited evidence contradicts the specific factual claim.
We cannot independently verify the claim with the information available.
Overall assessments and viewer risk
An overall assessment summarizes the advice in a particular video. It is not a score for the creator. We use descriptions such as “Generally Supported,” “Material Omissions,” or “Unable to Fully Verify.”
Low, moderate, and high viewer-risk ratings describe the possible consequences of following the advice. They do not describe a creator’s trustworthiness. A report must explain the reason for its rating.
Evidence has limits
Pricing, platform rules, and other facts can change. Reports should identify the dates and scope of their research. A personal result does not establish a typical result, and a missing source does not establish a false claim.