SIGNAL & SHADOW · STANDARDS

Code of Standards

SIG-STD-002Version 2.0Published 2026signalandshadow.io/code-of-standards

Signal & Shadow is an independent investigative practice working in open source intelligence, digital forensics, and visual investigation. This code sets out the standards we try to hold ourselves to, the standards we ask of contributors, and the standards by which the public may hold us to account.

20 sections

01Purpose and accuracyEvery claim we publish is one we believe to be true at the time of publication and one we are prepared to defend in full.

We publish to inform. Every claim we publish is one we believe to be true at the time of publication and one we are prepared to defend in full. Where evidence is partial, we say so. Where it is contested, we show the contest. We use precise, factual language, take care not to overstate findings, and do not publish to entertain, to provoke, or to perform.

02Evidence-based neutralityAll Signal & Shadow outputs are grounded in observable, verifiable data.

All Signal & Shadow outputs are grounded in observable, verifiable data. Four constraints apply.

THE FOUR CONSTRAINTS

No speculation. If a data point cannot be verified, it is marked DATA NOT ACQUIRED.

No adjectives. Descriptions must be measurable and observable, not qualitative.

Metrics replace descriptors. Quantities, coordinates, timestamps, and technical measurements are used in place of evaluative language.

Mandatory substitutions are applied to all outputs before publication.

Prohibited term	Mandatory substitution	Rationale
Explosion	Kinetic impact	Removes causal inference
Bloody, high-casualty	High-attrition	Removes emotive descriptor
Unusual	Statistical outlier	Introduces measurable framing
Violent	Observational descriptor only	Removes editorial judgment

03VerificationEvery visual, document, account, and dataset we publish has been verified using methods consistent with the Berkeley Protocol.

Every visual, document, account, and dataset we publish has been verified using methods consistent with the Berkeley Protocol. We confirm location, time, and provenance by independent means before attribution. The central claim of an investigation is supported by at least two independent sources, except where only one relevant source exists, in which case we say so. We do not republish material we cannot verify.

3.1Source grading

Every source is assigned an Admiralty 6x6 grade before the output is drafted: a letter for reliability, a number for credibility.

RELIABILITY

ACompletely reliable

BUsually reliable

CFairly reliable

DNot usually reliable

EUnreliable

FCannot be judged

CREDIBILITY

1Confirmed by independent sources

2Probably true

3Possibly true

4Doubtful

5Improbable

6Cannot be judged

3.2Data provenance

All factual claims are tagged with one of three provenance categories.

SEARCH-DERIVED

Information obtained via active OSINT query. Cited with source, platform, and retrieval date.

TRAINING-DERIVED

Contextual information from model knowledge. Explicitly flagged. Not presented as current verified data.

FILE-DERIVED

Information extracted from an uploaded file or media artefact. Referenced with file ID and hash where available.

3.3Media integrity

All media artefacts examined are subject to the Media Integrity Protocol: file metadata status, ELA/FFT artefact detection, codec fingerprinting, chronological markers, C2PA Content Credentials status, and Hard (SHA-256) and Soft (perceptual hash) Bindings for file matching.

04AuditabilityWork that cannot be reproduced by an independent analyst does not meet Signal & Shadow evidentiary standards.

Every forensic output includes a technical appendix sufficient for an independent analyst to reproduce the methodology: tool logs and query strings, raw SHA-256 hash values, chronolocation calculations, satellite imagery cross-references, and structural compromise assessments where relevant.

THE REPRODUCIBILITY TEST

Work that cannot be reproduced by an independent analyst does not meet Signal & Shadow evidentiary standards. If we cannot show our working, we do not publish.

05Editing and pre-publication reviewNo investigation is published without review by at least one person other than the author.

No investigation is published without review by at least one person other than the author. The reviewer tests the evidence, the reasoning, the framing, and the language against this code, and is named in our internal record for each published work.

06Sourcing and attributionWe identify our sources unless doing so would expose them to harm.

We identify our sources unless doing so would expose them to harm. Anonymous sources are used only where corroborated by named sources or material evidence. We do not pay sources for information, and we disclose when material has been provided by an interested party, when access has been mediated, or when claims rest on a single source.

PERMISSIBLE ATTRIBUTION

Official government statements, commercial satellite firms, news agencies, and intergovernmental organisations.

SOCIAL MEDIA HANDLES

Not credited in general summaries. Identified, with platform and username, in the Media Integrity Protocol and Admiralty Grade Triage sections only.

07Right of replyWe offer a right of reply, where appropriate and feasible, to any named person or organisation that is the subject of significant criticism, allegation, or attribution.

We offer a right of reply, where appropriate and feasible, to any named person or organisation that is the subject of significant criticism, allegation, or attribution. We allow reasonable time for response and record the offer and any response received.

08Subject safetyOpen source material is not consequence-free.

Open source material is not consequence-free. We assess the risk our work poses to identifiable individuals before publication, with particular care for civilians, witnesses, minors, and survivors of violence. We redact, blur, or withhold where publication would cause foreseeable harm that outweighs the public interest.

09Data handling, digital security, and zero-risk workflowsSignal & Shadow does not cross the boundary between public OSINT and unauthorised access to private systems.

We collect the minimum data necessary to verify and publish, store evidence securely, maintain chain of custody, and anonymise personal data that could enable harassment. We do not retain personal data beyond the period required for the work.

THE STOP-AT-THE-LOGIN RULE

Signal & Shadow does not cross the boundary between public OSINT and unauthorised access to private systems.

10Use of artificial intelligenceWe use AI tools as aids to research, analysis, drafting, and translation.

We use AI tools as aids to research, analysis, drafting, and translation. We do not publish AI-generated imagery, audio, or video as evidence, and any AI-assisted geolocation, transcription, classification, or translation is verified by a human analyst before it informs a published claim.

AI PRODUCTION DISCLOSURE

Signal & Shadow uses AI tools in the research, drafting, and production of some content, specifically in the formatting and coding of HTML elements, not in the writing of editorial text. Where that is the case, posts carry the EU “AI Modified” label under Article 50 of the EU AI Act. All content has been reviewed by a human editor, who retains editorial responsibility.

11Independence and political non-partisanshipNo funder, client, advertiser, partner, or platform has any right of review, approval, or veto over our investigations.

No funder, client, advertiser, partner, or platform has any right of review, approval, or veto over our investigations. We do not endorse political parties or candidates for public office.

12Conflicts of interestNo person working on a Signal & Shadow investigation may hold a salaried or prominent position in a political party, campaign, government, or state-controlled body.

No person working on a Signal & Shadow investigation may hold a salaried or prominent position in a political party, campaign, government, or state-controlled body. We disclose relationships that could reasonably be seen to affect judgement, and recuse where a conflict cannot be managed by disclosure.

13Funding and transparencyWe publish a current statement of funding naming every source contributing more than 5% of annual income or €5,000, whichever is lower, for the most recent two financial years.

We publish a current statement of funding naming every source contributing more than 5% of annual income or €5,000, whichever is lower, for the most recent two financial years. Where an investigation has been supported by a specific funder, that funder is disclosed in the published work.

View funding →

14ContributorsContributors retain authorship of their work and are credited by name unless safety considerations require otherwise.

Contributors retain authorship of their work and are credited by name unless safety considerations require otherwise. We pay contributors fairly and on time, and do not exploit early career, freelance, or locally based investigators through unpaid labour or uncredited work.

15FramingAll Signal & Shadow outputs are framed as independent forensic audits or verified investigative dossiers, never as a submission to law enforcement or judicial authorities.

All Signal & Shadow outputs are framed as independent forensic audits or verified investigative dossiers, never as a submission to law enforcement or judicial authorities.

16LanguageAll outputs are produced in British English and adhere to AP Style.

All outputs are produced in British English and adhere to AP Style. Sentence case is used for all headlines, terminal punctuation is not used in headlines, and technical jargon is defined on first use.

17CorrectionsWe correct every known error of fact promptly, openly, and in full.

We correct every known error of fact promptly, openly, and in full. Each correction is appended to the original work, dated, and explained. A central register of corrections is maintained at signalandshadow.io/corrections.

View register →

18ComplaintsAny person may raise a complaint by writing to the editor.

Any person may raise a complaint by writing to the editor. We acknowledge receipt within five working days and respond substantively within twenty. Where a complaint is upheld, we publish the outcome alongside the affected work.

editor@signalandshadow.io →

19Legal complianceWe work within applicable law, including data protection, copyright, and national security frameworks in the jurisdictions where we operate.

We work within applicable law, including data protection, copyright, and national security frameworks in the jurisdictions where we operate. We do not commission, encourage, or accept material obtained through unlawful access to computer systems, intercepted communications, or coercion.

20ReviewThis code is reviewed at least annually and revised as practice develops.

This code is reviewed at least annually and revised as practice develops. Material changes are versioned and dated, with current and superseded versions archived at signalandshadow.io/code-of-standards.

Next review · 2027

No section matches. Try fewer words, or clear the filter.

Standards enquiries

Questions, complaints under Section 18, or proposed amendments under Section 20. Acknowledgement inside five working days. Substantive response inside twenty.

Email editor →

Verification Standards: the Signal & Shadow sourcing standard