Ethical principles
We verify what people holding public power say. It's work that touches other people's reputation and the trust of those who read us: that's why the method, even before the software, is an ethical matter.
Last updated: July 2026
We don't have an endless list of values. We have a few rules, which we try to honour every time we publish a verdict — even when it would be more convenient, or more viral, not to. We developed them from the principles of Analytiko (transparency, respect, honesty) — the company whose product Cryterio is — adapting them to what Cryterio actually does: pass a judgement, in public and in real time, on a factual claim.
1. The source before the judgement
No verdict without a primary source cited. We never say a claim is false because “everyone knows”: we write it only when a public, verifiable source contradicts the data, and we place that source next to the verdict, with title, body, link and excerpt. If we can't show the evidence, we don't issue the judgement.
2. We verify facts, not people
Our object is the claim, not who utters it. A Cryterio verdict says “this figure is imprecise compared with source X”, never “this person is lying”. It's a substantive distinction, not one of form: it protects the dignity of the person being checked, reduces the risk of defamation and keeps us anchored to the solid ground of the data.
3. When in doubt, caution
When the evidence isn't enough, the verdict is non_verificabile — and that's perfectly fine. A wrong assessment does more damage than a claim left pending. We'd rather say “we don't know yet” than guess. The machine is tuned to be cautious, not to fill the timeline.
4. The same yardstick for everyone
Cryterio has no political colour and does not choose claims based on who makes them. The same data, from the same source, gets the same verdict wherever it comes from. The schedule is curated by relevance, not by sympathy. If that makes us awkward for every side, it's a good sign.
5. Transparency of method
We explain how the system works, what we check and what we leave out (opinions, promises, rhetoric, well-known facts), and at what cost. The labels are four and public: true, imprecise, unconfirmed, unverifiable. There's no black box deciding for you: every verdict carries with it the elements to check it yourself.
6. Honesty about limits
An automated system can be wrong: an imperfect transcription, a source missing from the index, an ambiguous number. We don't pretend to be infallible. When a verdict is wrong we correct it openly, and we improve the source index so it doesn't happen again — the path is documented on the Improvements page. Every verdict re-examined with a different label appears in the public corrections register.
7. Respect for the data of those who follow us
The audio of the broadcasts is transcribed locally, on our servers, and we don't hand it to third parties. On the site we use only technical cookies, without profiling. Your account information serves to deliver the service and manage the subscription, nothing more: the details are in the Privacy Policy.
These principles aren't a manifesto to frame: they're the criteria by which we decide, every day, whether a verdict can be published. If you think we're betraying one of them, write to us at [email protected].