Editorial Policy

THE DEEP FILES
Investigations • Documents • Evidence

Last Updated: 23 September 2026

1. Our Editorial Mission

THE DEEP FILES is an independent investigative journalism and research platform based in the Netherlands.

Our editorial mission is to investigate matters of public interest through documents, evidence, open-source research, direct correspondence, primary materials, and rigorous analysis.

Our work is guided by a fundamental principle:

Evidence before conclusions.

We do not begin an investigation with a predetermined finding and then search for material to support it. We seek evidence, examine competing explanations, identify gaps and inconsistencies, and distinguish what can be established from what remains uncertain.

2. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently.

Governments, corporations, political organizations, advertisers, sponsors, investors, subjects of investigations, technology companies, or other external parties should not determine our investigative findings or editorial conclusions.

Commercial relationships do not purchase favorable coverage or protection from legitimate investigation.

Where a material relationship creates a potential conflict of interest relevant to an investigation, THE DEEP FILES may disclose that relationship where appropriate.

3. Evidence Standards

Our investigations may rely on sources including:

Official government records;
Court documents;
Regulatory filings and decisions;
Corporate filings and disclosures;
Scientific publications;
Academic research;
Public databases;
Freedom-of-information materials;
Original correspondence;
Interviews;
Public statements;
Archived webpages and records;
Photographs, audio, and video;
Screen recordings and digital records;
Documents supplied by sources;
Open-source intelligence;
Direct testing and documented observations; and
Other materials capable of supporting responsible investigative reporting.

The existence of a source does not automatically establish the truth of every statement contained within it.

We consider provenance, context, reliability, authenticity, relevance, and corroboration where appropriate.

4. Primary Sources

Where reasonably available, THE DEEP FILES prioritizes primary sources over secondary reporting.

For example, when reporting on a court case, we seek the underlying court documents where available.

When examining a company’s statements, we may review its filings, official communications, correspondence, or original publications.

When examining scientific claims, we seek the underlying research and relevant regulatory or scientific materials where available.

Secondary journalism can provide valuable context and may lead to further investigation, but another publication’s reporting does not automatically become independent proof of a claim.

5. Facts, Allegations, Analysis and Questions

THE DEEP FILES seeks to distinguish clearly between different categories of information.

Documented Fact
Information sufficiently supported by identifiable evidence.

Allegation or Claim
A statement made by a person, company, authority, litigant, source, or other party that has not necessarily been independently established.

Analysis
Our examination and interpretation of evidence, documents, timelines, relationships, data, or competing explanations.

Opinion or Commentary
A viewpoint or interpretation that should be distinguishable from factual reporting.

Open Question
A material issue for which the available evidence does not support a definitive conclusion.

Questions should not be written in a manner that falsely presents an unsupported accusation as established fact.

6. No Presumption of Wrongdoing

Being investigated or mentioned by THE DEEP FILES does not mean that a person, company, institution, or organization has committed wrongdoing.

Similarly, the existence of:

A lawsuit;
Criminal charges;
A regulatory inquiry;
An investigation;
An allegation;
A whistleblower complaint;
A public controversy; or
An unanswered question

does not by itself establish liability or guilt.

Where criminal matters are discussed, the presumption of innocence applies unless and until guilt has been established according to applicable law by a competent court.

7. Corroboration

The level of verification required depends on the seriousness and potential consequences of a claim.

Material allegations should receive greater scrutiny than routine factual information.

Where appropriate, we seek independent corroboration through documents, additional sources, direct evidence, public records, technical testing, or other reliable methods.

A single source may sometimes provide information of legitimate public interest, but the reliability of that source and the availability of corroborating evidence should be carefully assessed.

8. Anonymous and Confidential Sources

THE DEEP FILES may use confidential or anonymous sources where their information is important to a legitimate investigation and there is a reasonable justification for protecting their identity.

We consider factors including:

The source’s access to the information;
The credibility of the source;
Possible motives or conflicts of interest;
Supporting documentation;
Independent corroboration;
Risks associated with identification; and
The public interest in the information.

Where possible, significant claims from confidential sources should be independently corroborated.

Source anonymity does not eliminate the need for verification.

9. Source Protection

THE DEEP FILES recognizes the importance of protecting journalistic sources.

We seek to limit unnecessary disclosure of confidential source identities and sensitive source information.

However, no ordinary digital communication system can be guaranteed to provide absolute confidentiality.

Sources should not assume that standard email or website communication is suitable for transmitting highly sensitive information.

10. Right of Reply

Before publishing serious allegations or findings materially affecting an identifiable person, company, institution, or organization, THE DEEP FILES may provide the relevant party with a reasonable opportunity to respond where appropriate.

Questions should accurately represent the matters on which a response is being sought.

Responses may be:

Quoted;
Summarized;
Incorporated into the investigation;
Published separately;
Linked to the investigation; or
Used to correct or reconsider information.

The editorial treatment of a response depends on its relevance and substance.

11. Non-Response

Failure to respond to THE DEEP FILES does not constitute proof of wrongdoing.

We will not describe silence as an admission.

Where relevant, we may accurately state that questions were sent, identify the date or period in which they were sent, describe the reasonable opportunity provided for response, and state that no response had been received by publication time.

If a substantive response arrives after publication, it may be reviewed for inclusion or further reporting.

12. Accuracy

THE DEEP FILES seeks accuracy in:

Names;
Dates;
Quotations;
Numbers;
Documents;
Corporate relationships;
Timelines;
Legal proceedings;
Scientific information;
Regulatory information; and
Other material facts.

Where uncertainty exists, reporting should reflect that uncertainty rather than presenting speculation as established fact.

13. Context and Fair Representation

A technically accurate statement can still mislead when material context is omitted.

We therefore seek to present evidence in sufficient context to avoid materially distorting its meaning.

Quotations should not be selectively edited in a manner that materially changes what the speaker communicated.

Documents should likewise be interpreted in their relevant context where that context is reasonably available.

14. Corrections

THE DEEP FILES distinguishes between:

Correction — fixing a material factual error.

Clarification — making accurate information clearer where readers could reasonably misunderstand it.

Update — adding significant information that became available after publication.

Editor’s Note — providing material context concerning the publication or subsequent developments.

Material factual errors should be corrected when adequately established.

Corrections should not be refused merely because they are inconvenient to the publication or its investigation.

At the same time, disagreement with an article does not automatically establish that the article contains an error.

15. Developing Investigations

Publication does not necessarily close an investigation.

New evidence, documents, responses, court decisions, regulatory findings, scientific developments, or other material information may justify continuing or expanding an investigation.

Where appropriate, THE DEEP FILES may publish follow-up investigations rather than repeatedly rewriting the historical record of an earlier article.

16. Documents and Evidence

THE DEEP FILES may publish or reproduce documents where there is an appropriate editorial, legal, and public-interest basis.

Where necessary, documents may be redacted to protect:

Personal data;
Minors;
Confidential sources;
Unrelated third parties;
Security-sensitive information; or
Other information whose publication would create unjustified harm.

Redactions should not be used to materially misrepresent the underlying evidence.

17. Alteration of Evidence

Documentary evidence should not be manipulated in a manner that changes its substantive meaning.

Images, recordings, screenshots, videos, or documents may be technically processed for purposes such as cropping, readability, formatting, translation, compression, or protection of sensitive information, provided such processing does not falsely alter the underlying evidence.

Material alterations relevant to interpretation should be disclosed where appropriate.

18. Scientific and Medical Reporting

Scientific and medical investigations require particular care.

THE DEEP FILES seeks to distinguish between:

Peer-reviewed research;
Preprints;
Regulatory findings;
Company-provided data;
Individual expert opinion;
Hypotheses;
Legal allegations;
Statistical associations; and
Established causal findings.

Scientific disagreement should be represented according to the strength and quality of available evidence rather than merely presenting opposing claims as automatically equivalent.

Reporting should also identify material limitations and uncertainty where relevant.

19. Legal and Regulatory Reporting

THE DEEP FILES may analyze conduct against legal or regulatory frameworks.

Potential applicability of a law or regulation should be distinguished from an authoritative finding that the law was violated.

Unless a competent authority has made such a determination, we should not present our legal analysis as a judicial or regulatory finding.

Where appropriate, legal conclusions are attributed to courts, regulators, lawyers, litigants, or other identified sources.

20. Financial and Corporate Investigations

Corporate and financial reporting may examine ownership, investments, transactions, governance, financial performance, conflicts of interest, regulatory matters, and relationships between companies, individuals, and public institutions.

Financial losses, unusual transactions, controversial investments, or business relationships do not independently establish misconduct.

Our reporting should distinguish commercial judgment, documented financial outcomes, allegations of misconduct, and established legal findings.

21. Artificial Intelligence

THE DEEP FILES may use artificial intelligence to support:

Research organization;
Document comparison;
Translation;
Transcription;
Language improvement;
Summarization;
Timeline development;
Data processing; and
Other editorial workflows.

AI-generated information is not automatically treated as fact or evidence.

Material claims should be checked against appropriate underlying sources.

Final editorial responsibility remains human.

Further details are provided in our AI Disclosure.

22. Investigating Artificial Intelligence Systems

Where THE DEEP FILES investigates the behavior of an AI system, we seek to preserve relevant evidence such as original conversations, prompts, outputs, timestamps, screenshots, screen recordings, and reproduction attempts where appropriate.

Individual interactions with an AI system demonstrate what occurred under those documented conditions.

We seek to avoid presenting a limited test as proof of universal system behavior unless the available evidence supports such a conclusion.

Reproducibility, version differences, system updates, and testing conditions may be relevant to interpretation.

23. Conflicts of Interest

Anyone materially involved in an investigation should disclose relevant financial, personal, professional, or other relationships that could reasonably affect editorial independence.

Where a conflict cannot reasonably be eliminated, it should be managed appropriately and disclosed where necessary for readers to evaluate the work.

24. Advertising, Sponsorship and Commercial Relationships

Advertising or sponsorship does not grant editorial control.

Advertisers and commercial partners cannot purchase:

Favorable investigative findings;
Suppression of legitimate reporting;
Advance approval of unrelated editorial content; or
Protection from investigation.

Sponsored or paid material should be distinguishable from independent editorial content.

25. Political Independence

THE DEEP FILES may investigate governments, politicians, political parties, public institutions, lobbying activities, political financing, or matters of public policy.

Our investigative role is to examine evidence and matters of public interest, not to instruct readers how to vote or which political organization to support.

Where political claims are disputed, we seek to attribute those claims and provide relevant factual context.

26. Privacy and Public Interest

Public interest is not identical to public curiosity.

Before publishing private information, we consider its relevance to the investigation and whether publication contributes meaningfully to public understanding.

Particular care should be taken with:

Children;
Private individuals;
Medical information;
Family information;
Home addresses;
Financial information;
Victims of crime;
Sexual information; and
Other highly sensitive personal data.

Being associated with a person under investigation does not automatically make another person’s private life relevant.

27. Graphic, Disturbing or Sensitive Material

Where disturbing material is necessary to document an investigation, THE DEEP FILES may use warnings, redactions, limited excerpts, blurring, or other measures where appropriate.

The evidentiary or public-interest value of publication should be considered against unnecessary harm.

28. Plagiarism and Attribution

THE DEEP FILES does not knowingly present another person’s original work as its own.

Material originating from other publications, researchers, organizations, or authors should receive appropriate attribution where required.

Publicly available facts may be independently reported, but original reporting, distinctive analysis, quotations, images, and other protected work should be handled according to applicable intellectual-property and attribution standards.

29. Editorial Updates After Legal or Corporate Contact

THE DEEP FILES does not automatically remove or alter accurate reporting because a subject, company, lawyer, government, or other interested party objects to it.

At the same time, all substantive challenges should be evaluated on their evidence.

If a challenge identifies a genuine factual error or materially incomplete context, appropriate corrective action may be taken.

Editorial independence includes both the ability to defend accurate reporting and the responsibility to correct inaccurate reporting.

30. Our Commitment to Readers

THE DEEP FILES asks readers to judge our investigations by the quality of the evidence supporting them.

Our responsibility is to:

Investigate carefully.
Document accurately.
Attribute claims properly.
Seek relevant responses.
Separate evidence from allegation.
Correct material errors.
Disclose significant uncertainty.
Remain independent.

We do not ask readers to accept our conclusions merely because we published them.

Where possible, we provide the evidence and context necessary for readers to examine the issue and reach their own informed conclusions.

Contact

Questions concerning our editorial standards, factual corrections, evidence, or right of reply may be directed to:

THE DEEP FILES
The Hague, Netherlands

Email: contact@thedeepfiles.com
Website: thedeepfiles.com