How FactHeck fact-checks a video or post

The five-stage pipeline

Every submission runs through the same automated pipeline. Each stage is independent and its output is recorded, so a verdict can always be traced back to the claims and evidence that produced it.

1. Ingestion. We fetch the public post from the source platform (TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, X and others) — the video or image, plus any caption text. Photo posts skip the audio steps and go straight to visual analysis.
2. Transcription. For video and audio, speech is transcribed so the spoken claims become text we can examine.
3. Claim extraction. A language model reads the transcript, caption, and on-screen/visual content and pulls out the discrete factual claims being made — the specific, checkable assertions, separated from opinion and rhetoric.
4. Evidence retrieval. For each claim we search for independent, authoritative sources and gather the most relevant evidence for and against it.
5. Verdict. Each claim is rated against the evidence, with a short explanation and links to the key sources used. The claim-level verdicts are then summarised into an overall assessment of the post.

Our rating scale

Each individual claim is rated on a seven-point scale, from fully supported to contradicted by the evidence:

• True — well supported by reliable evidence.
• Mostly True — accurate in the main, with minor caveats.
• Mixed — contains both accurate and inaccurate elements.
• Misleading — technically defensible but framed to create a false impression.
• Mostly False — largely contradicted by the evidence.
• False — contradicted by reliable evidence.
• Unverifiable — there is not enough reliable evidence to rate the claim either way.

The post as a whole receives an overall rating — Reliable, Mostly Reliable, Mixed, Questionable, or Unreliable — reflecting the balance of its individual claims. A claim we cannot verify is labelled as such rather than being treated as false: absence of evidence is not evidence of falsehood.

Sources and evidence

We prioritise primary sources and recognised, independent authorities — official statistics and government bodies, peer-reviewed research, and established news organisations — over anonymous or partisan posts. The specific sources used for each claim are listed with the verdict so you can check our working and reach your own conclusion. We link out to those sources directly; we do not ask you to take our word for it.

AI-generated content detection

Separately from claim-checking, FactHeck can assess whether an image or video shows signs of being AI-generated or manipulated. This is a probabilistic signal, not a certainty: detection of synthetic media is an evolving field, and a result should be read as "consistent with" rather than "proof of" AI generation.

The role of AI, and its limits

FactHeck's pipeline is automated and uses large language models. That makes it fast and consistent, but it is not infallible. Models can misread context, miss sarcasm, over- or under-weight a source, or be limited by what evidence is publicly available at the time of checking. Verdicts are a well-sourced starting point for your own judgement, not the final word. When the evidence is thin or contested, we say so rather than manufacturing false confidence.

Independence

FactHeck is operated by SAFEGUARDAI (MIRA) LTD. Verdicts are produced from the evidence by the pipeline described above; they are not for sale and are not influenced by the people, brands, or platforms a claim happens to involve.

Corrections

We will get things wrong sometimes. When we do, we fix it and say what changed — see our corrections policy. If you believe a verdict is mistaken, email hello@factheck.com with the link and what you think is wrong.