Forensic language is not a style choice. The words used to characterise a source, describe an event, or attribute a claim determine whether published work holds up under legal scrutiny, editorial challenge, or cross-examination. "Allegedly" and "reportedly" are not confidence levels: they are evasions that shift accountability without defining it. Precision is not optional in investigative output. It is the evidentiary floor.
Apply the neutral language standard whenever characterising a source, grading a finding, attributing a claim, or describing an event in any draft intended for publication. The four confidence tiers — Confirmed, Corroborated, Reported, Alleged — map directly to source reliability and information grades. Each term, used in isolation, describes one finding. Used consistently across a dossier, they define what the investigation can and cannot support.
LST-001 sets out the methodology for substituting prohibited language, grading findings by confidence tier, and attributing sources to evidentiary standard.
Four confidence tiers, five substitution categories, five AP Style rules, four attribution standards, four false-positive patterns, five chain-of-custody requirements.
|
01
Required Tools
Five references covering style, substitution, and attribution standards.
|
02
OPSEC
Attribution errors that narrow source pools and expose identities.
|
|
03
Workflow
Seven-step sequence from substitution scan to language sign-off.
|
04
False Positives
Four patterns where convention masquerades as evidentiary language.
|
|
05
Chain of Custody
Five requirements for documenting language decisions and version history.
|
06
Key Queries
Five editorial self-audit checks by confidence tier and attribution type.
|
Download the card.
A PDF version of LST-001 is available to download for free below.
