Open methodology data · 2026
OSINT source-reliability matrix.
A source is not reliable by category alone. This reference helps ask four repeatable questions while preserving the context, date and limitations of each item.
Four reading dimensions
Ask what the source can establish—not whether it looks convincing.
Can the origin and chain be identified?
Is this genuinely separate from the claim?
Does its date fit the decision?
What precise fact can it support?
Scores describe typical properties of a source type, not the automatic reliability of every document. Origin, date, scope and corroboration remain essential.
Interactive reference
Filter 16 source types by category and evidential value.
16 results displayed
- Provenance
- Independence
- Freshness
- Evidence
Existence, status, officers or filings within the register’s scope.
Caution: A register reflects its rules, date and submitted information; it does not prove every real-world activity.
- Provenance
- Independence
- Freshness
- Evidence
Establish a decision, proceeding and published outcome.
Caution: Check jurisdiction, date, appeal status, anonymisation and exact scope.
- Provenance
- Independence
- Freshness
- Evidence
Official position, alert, statistic or instruction within a defined field.
Caution: Separate observed data, institutional communication and recommendation.
- Provenance
- Independence
- Freshness
- Evidence
Statements, accounts, governance and events published by the entity.
Caution: Primary evidence of the statement, but interested in its interpretation.
- Provenance
- Independence
- Freshness
- Evidence
Declared channels, offers, positions and operational information.
Caution: Verify the domain or account and preserve the dated version.
- Provenance
- Independence
- Freshness
- Evidence
Establish the content of a statement or act at a given time.
Caution: Authenticate issuer, integrity, version and production context.
- Provenance
- Independence
- Freshness
- Evidence
Context, attributed testimony, chronology and reporting.
Caution: Return to cited sources and distinguish reporting, opinion, wire copy and correction.
- Provenance
- Independence
- Freshness
- Evidence
Technical or sector context and expert interpretation.
Caution: Check expertise, method, funding and proximity to the subject.
- Provenance
- Independence
- Freshness
- Evidence
Method, limitations, findings and state of knowledge for a defined question.
Caution: Check review status, sample, replication, date and fit to the case.
- Provenance
- Independence
- Freshness
- Evidence
Show that a page or version was archived at a given date.
Caution: An archive may be incomplete and does not prove author, intent or every loaded resource.
- Provenance
- Independence
- Freshness
- Evidence
Dates, technical relationships and visible changes in public infrastructure.
Caution: A technical relationship proves neither common ownership nor common intent.
- Provenance
- Independence
- Freshness
- Evidence
Compare structured observations with explicit method, date and variables.
Caution: Check definitions, coverage, series breaks, licence and missing values.
- Provenance
- Independence
- Freshness
- Evidence
Understand a lived observation and guide verification.
Caution: Memory, perception and witness interest require corroboration and context.
- Provenance
- Independence
- Freshness
- Evidence
Establish that an account displayed content at a given time.
Caution: Identity, actual author, context and account integrity may remain uncertain.
- Provenance
- Independence
- Freshness
- Evidence
Identify a lead or narrative to verify, not a conclusion.
Caution: Do not attribute, republish or treat as fact without independent sourcing.
- Provenance
- Independence
- Freshness
- Evidence
Guide analysis when model, version and validity domain are known.
Caution: A score alone proves neither authenticity, manipulation nor origin.
No source type matches these filters.
Method
How to use the matrix in a real case.
Begin with the fact to establish. A corporate register may be strong for a recorded officer but weak for current operational control; a direct witness may be fresh but still require independent corroboration.
Record the exact item, publisher, URL, consultation date, covered period and transformation applied. Then score the item—not the entire publisher—and explain why.
Use scores to expose disagreement and missing checks. Never average them into a certainty percentage.
FAQ
Use source categories without overclaiming.
Is an official source always true?
No. It is strong evidence of what the institution recorded or stated within its scope and date. It may still be incomplete, corrected or unsuitable for a different question.
Can the four scores be added together?
No. They are separate reading dimensions, not a universal reliability grade. A source can be fresh but weak as evidence, or authoritative but outdated.
Why are automated detector scores rated cautiously?
A detector answers a narrow model-dependent question. Without validation, version, media type and error context, its score cannot establish authenticity or origin.
Apply the method