Methodology
This site tracks specific claims about Alberta independence and checks them against the public record. The goal is to be useful to people on any side of the question, so claims are stated fairly, verdicts span the full range, and every point links to a source you can read yourself.
How a claim is stated
Each claim is written the way its strongest advocates would put it, in plain language, before any assessment. A claim is not rephrased to make it easier to challenge. Where a person or organization is on record making the argument, they are named.
The five verdicts
A verdict describes what the evidence currently supports. It can confirm a claim, qualify it, or point to where it breaks down. Each verdict has its own color and icon so it can be told apart at a glance, and so meaning never depends on color alone.
- Established
- The claim, as written, is well-supported by law or strong evidence, and the matter is not genuinely open. Every verdict answers the same question: is this claim, as stated, true? A claim whose settled answer runs against it is marked Misleading, and one that is accurate only with important context is marked Needs context, not Established.
- Needs context
- The claim, as written, is accurate, but a key piece of context changes how most people would read it. The fact is not wrong; the impression it leaves can be, so the entry supplies the missing context. A common example is a figure that is true in total but looks very different per person.
- Contested
- Credible sources disagree, or the outcome depends on negotiations and decisions that have not happened yet. The claim may turn out to be right, but it is not settled, and this site does not pretend otherwise.
- Misleading
- The claim, as written, is false, or its individual facts are combined to create an impression the evidence does not support. The verdict points to the gap between the claim and the underlying record.
- Unverifiable
- There is not enough reliable public information to reach a verdict. The claim is neither supported nor ruled out, and the entry says so plainly.
Sourcing standard
- Every evidence point links to a real, named source. Where a precise link is still being confirmed, the source is named and marked as having a link pending rather than pointing somewhere unverified.
- Sources are drawn from government documents, courts, peer-reviewed research, and established news and policy organizations across the spectrum.
- Summaries are written in the site's own words. Phrasing is not copied from the sources.
- Each entry records the date it was last reviewed, so readers can see how current the assessment is.
Corrections
Verdicts can change as the record changes. If a source is wrong, a link is broken, or new evidence shifts the picture, the entry is meant to be updated and its review date refreshed.