How can I trace a chain of online reporting back to the evidence it relies on?
Quick answer
Start with the exact claim you want to check, then follow each stated attribution, link, footnote, or quoted source one step at a time. Record what each item says it relies on and whether the material supports the claim. Draw only documented connections, marking uncertain or unavailable steps. If the trail stops, name the last item you could inspect; don’t assume it is the original evidence.
The question, the details, the next step.
I see the same claim repeated across several websites. How do I work out what evidence they’re actually relying on?
Choose one precise claim first, rather than trying to trace an entire article. Write it down in the wording you want to check. Then look for the article’s stated support: links, footnotes, embedded documents, named reports, quotations, or phrases such as “according to.”
Follow those references one at a time. At each stop, record the page or document and the specific passage or item it points to. Ask two separate questions: “Does this source make the claim?” and “Does it show the evidence behind the claim?” A page repeating an assertion shows that it repeated it; repetition alone does not show where the assertion began.
A simple chain might look like this:
Claim → Article A cites Report B → Report B links to Document C
Use arrows only for relationships you can see on the pages. If you have not checked what a link supports, label that connection “unverified” rather than treating the chain as established.
What if an article cites another article, and that one points to a report? How do I distinguish the chain from the original evidence?
Give each item a role in your notes: the page making the claim, a page repeating or summarizing it, a report cited by that page, and any underlying document or data the report identifies. These roles describe what you observed; they do not prove which item came first or was authoritative.
Hypothetical example: Article A says a project “cut delays by half” and links to Article B. Article B says it is summarizing Report C. Report C describes an evaluation and links to a table. Your diagram could be:
Claim: “cut delays by half”
↓ Article A — links to Article B
↓ Article B — attributes figure to Report C
↓ Report C — links to Table D
? Table D — not yet checked against the exact claim
After inspecting Table D, note whether it contains the measure, comparison, and wording used in the claim. If the report does not identify its inputs, or the table cannot be found, stop there. Call it the last located item, not the original evidence. A chain can also branch: two articles may cite the same report, or one page may rely on several items.
Some links are broken, and sometimes a source is named but there’s no link. What should I put in the diagram?
Preserve the gap instead of filling it with a guess. Record the attribution—for example, “Article B says the figure comes from Report C”—and mark the report as named but not inspected if you cannot locate it. For a broken link, note its displayed text and destination, if available, and label the destination “unavailable to me.”
Separate direct observations from inferences. “Article A links to Article B” is an observable link. “Article B copied the claim from Article A” is an inference unless you have evidence for that direction. A date or publication order can describe the trail, but does not by itself establish who originated a claim.
Try this notation:
A --[explicit link]--> B
B --[says it relies on]--> C (not located)
C --[underlying evidence]--> ?
The question mark shows what remains unknown without implying the trail is complete.
How can I make the finished trace clear to someone else who wants to check it?
Put the claim at the top, then list each item in order with a short note explaining the connection: linked by, quoted from, attributed to, or summarized from. Give the relevant page title or document name and the passage, footnote, or link label that led you onward. Keep your assessment separate from what each page states.
End with a boundary statement, such as: “I followed the article’s link to the report and the report’s link to the table. I could not establish where the report’s figures came from.” This tells readers what you checked and where your trace stops. Avoid calling something the “original source” unless the available material establishes that role.
Before sharing, check that every arrow has a stated basis, uncertain or unavailable items are marked, and the diagram follows the references you inspected rather than the order in which you found them.
A practical checklist
Write down the exact claim you are tracing.
Record each cited or linked item and the stated connection.
Check whether each item supports the claim or merely repeats it.
Mark broken links, inaccessible items, and unverified steps.
Name the last item you inspected; do not assume it is the origin.
Keep observed links separate from your inferences.
A few more useful answers
Does the earliest page I find count as the original source?
Not necessarily. It is the earliest item you located, but that does not establish that it originated the claim or contains the underlying evidence.
Should I include sources that repeat the claim but add no new evidence?
Include them if they help show the reporting chain, and label them as repetition or summary. That makes clear they are part of the trail, not independent support by default.
What if I can’t inspect a cited report?
Record the attribution and mark the report as unavailable or uninspected. State that the chain stops there rather than describing the report’s contents as verified.