Start with one assertion, not one broad headline
Four articles about the same market event can be four retellings of one statement. Before counting sources, isolate the assertion you want to check: a particular number, date or attributed action. Give it a short claim identifier and record each article separately. A broad headline may combine several assertions whose original sources differ.
This worksheet draws a small attribution chain from evidence you supply. An origin is a candidate you have identified as first-hand for that claim; a syndicated row points to a source it explicitly repeats; commentary adds interpretation; unknown keeps an unresolved role visible. Those labels describe your notebook. They are not verdicts about the accuracy or independence of a publisher.
An attribution link is evidence about a relationship
Open the article yourself and locate the actual attribution: a named release, a link, an agency credit or a clear statement of where a figure came from. Save a short reference to that passage in your own notes. Do not paste a whole article or assume that matching wording proves a contractual syndication arrangement. The parent field should point to the source the record actually identifies.
The tool checks the resulting structure, not the content behind the URL. A familiar hostname, an early timestamp or a publisher logo cannot establish that a report is first-hand. If the attribution is missing, leave the parent unresolved. The report will preserve that gap instead of selecting the earliest-looking article as the original.
UK public statistics offer a practical source trail
The Office for Statistics Regulation’s public-use standards distinguish accessible evidence from the communications built around it. Its required practices call for statistics and wider analysis to be published separately from related policy and ministerial statements. For a reader tracing a numerical claim, that makes the underlying publication worth finding rather than stopping at a press comment.
The ONS release policy also distinguishes a publication’s commentary from its supporting datasets and explains how corrections are displayed. These are examples of useful evidence locations, not a certificate that a secondary story has interpreted them correctly. Record the exact bulletin or table and the inspected version beside the attribution; do not let a generic link to an organisation’s homepage stand in for the relevant source.
Sources: Office for Statistics Regulation — Public-use standards with required practices, ONS — Release practice policy.
Two copies can add reach without adding another observation
In the fictional worked chain, relay-B names origin-A and relay-C names relay-B. Following the supplied links from either relay reaches origin-A. The report counts two linked syndication records and lists one reached origin candidate. It deliberately does not produce an independent-source count because the relationships and underlying evidence have not been authenticated.
A commentary row can cite origin-A while adding a different interpretation. Its presence remains visible, but it is not counted as another syndicated confirmation of the claim. If the commentary introduces a new factual assertion, give that assertion another claim record and trace its evidence separately. More rows in this report do not make the original assertion truer.
| Fictional row | Supplied role | Parent | Path / result |
|---|---|---|---|
| origin-A | Origin candidate | none | Candidate only |
| relay-B | Syndicated | origin-A | relay-B → origin-A |
| relay-C | Syndicated | relay-B | relay-C → relay-B → origin-A |
| analysis-D | Commentary | origin-A | Cites candidate; separate interpretation |
Read British date notation explicitly
A date such as 03/04/2026 is ambiguous when copied between regional formats. In this form, selecting DD/MM/YYYY means 3 April 2026. It never guesses month-first order. The ISO option requires 2026-04-03. Both the raw input and the interpreted date stay in the export so a reviewer can see which convention was used.
Date-only information cannot order two items within a day. The worksheet therefore leaves chronology unknown for an edge whenever either precise timestamp is missing. It does not assign 00:00 or borrow a normal release time from another publication. An apparent conflict based on an invented time would be less useful than an honest gap.
The source’s UTC date may differ from the London date
The fictional origin record uses 2026-04-03T23:30:00Z. In Europe/London it falls on 4 April at 00:30, because the UK is on British Summer Time. A copied date cell saying 3 April alongside a date intended to be London-local would be flagged as inconsistent. The original instant is retained; the tool never rewrites it to make the cells agree.
GOV.UK lists the 2026 clock changes as 29 March and 25 October and explains the BST/GMT distinction. Use a named time zone and a known offset for the precise instant, especially around the repeated autumn hour. A matching London date is only a consistency check. It does not identify where the journalist was located or how the publisher’s own timestamp was generated.
Sources: GOV.UK — When do the clocks change?.
Missing parents, cycles and different claims need different repairs
A missing parent means the linked source is not in this supplied set. Add it only after locating evidence, or keep the chain incomplete. A repeated row ID is rejected because two records would otherwise compete for one identity. A circular chain is also rejected: a path that returns to itself cannot establish an origin merely by repeating its links.
Every row along a valid path must carry the same claim identifier, a source URL, a checked-at time and an evidence reference. A conflicting claim stops that path from being treated as resolved. Even a complete path does not verify the quoted meaning. It shows that your notebook contains the expected structural fields for the particular relationship you declared.
A timestamp conflict is a question for the source record
When two supplied precise instants place a relay before its parent, the report flags a chronology conflict. That may reflect a revised page, the wrong version, a changed timestamp label or an incorrect attribution. The tool does not diagnose which explanation is true, accuse a publisher of copying, or silently sort the story into a more convenient order.
Keep first publication, later updates and your observation time separate in the source notes. This compact form represents one selected version per row; it is not a complete publishing-history archive. If the version changes, save another report rather than replacing the earlier evidence without explanation. A checked-at instant must not precede the precise publication instant you entered.
Save a useful research result before following the offer
The CSV records the input format, original URLs, raw and interpreted dates, UTC and London times, attribution path and unresolved reasons. Formula-like text is protected for spreadsheet export. Editing any field removes the old export until the chain is inspected again, which helps prevent a stale result from being mistaken for the current notebook.
Keep original articles and evidence within the permissions that apply to them; this page needs only short reference labels. It does not scrape, republish articles, predict a market reaction or tell you which position to take. The completed chain is available without joining anything. The optional link leads to this site’s existing English-language crypto signals and Telegram updates offer.
Worked examples
Example 1
Entire source graph and URLs are fictional; official sources below support the reading method and UK clock context, not this claim.
Inspect example inputs and expected results
{
"claim_id": "claim-DEMO",
"date_format": "DMY",
"as_of": "2026-10-20T22:00:00Z",
"rows": "id|role|parent_id|claim_id|source_url|published_date|published_at|evidence_ref|checked_at\norigin-A|origin||claim-DEMO|https://example.org/demo-original|04/04/2026|2026-04-03T23:30:00Z|DEMO record of original publisher attribution|2026-10-20T21:30:00Z\nrelay-B|syndicated|origin-A|claim-DEMO|https://example.org/demo-relay-b|04/04/2026|2026-04-04T00:05:00Z|DEMO saved explicit link to origin-A|2026-10-20T21:30:00Z\nrelay-C|syndicated|relay-B|claim-DEMO|https://example.org/demo-relay-c|04/04/2026||DEMO saved attribution to relay-B|2026-10-20T21:30:00Z\nanalysis-D|commentary|origin-A|claim-DEMO|https://example.org/demo-commentary|04/04/2026||DEMO commentary citing origin-A|2026-10-20T21:30:00Z"
}Expected result
{
"linked_syndication_rows": 2,
"origins_reached_by_linked_rows": [
"origin-A"
],
"unresolved_rows": 0,
"first_London_date": "2026-04-04",
"independent_source_count": null,
"claim_truth": null
}Questions about the method
Does the earliest article become the original automatically?
No. Origin is a supplied evidence role. A timestamp alone cannot prove first-hand reporting.
Are two publishers independent confirmations?
Not if the supplied paths lead back to the same material. Even different paths do not automatically prove editorial or factual independence.
Does a valid HTTPS URL verify the claim?
No. This worksheet neither opens the URL nor evaluates its content.
Primary sources and scope
- Office for Statistics Regulation — Public-use standards with required practicesChecked 2026-10-20. Separating underlying statistics/data from related policy and ministerial statements supports tracing an evidence source; no certification of this site or a media article.
- ONS — Release practice policyChecked 2026-10-20. Publications have commentary and supporting datasets; corrections are marked on affected publications. No normal release time is applied to an unknown article.
- GOV.UK — When do the clocks change?Checked 2026-10-20. 2026 UK changes on 29 March and 25 October, and BST/GMT distinction. Not a market calendar or publication verification.
Examples explain a method. They do not predict prices or establish where a trading service is available. Check the named source before relying on future schedules.