Fact-Check Memo Template

Module 4, Lesson 4.3 · produces Entry 2 of the capstone research-brief log · concept

What this is. A fact-check memo takes a specific claim — one someone made, in a specific piece of writing or speech — and asks is this true, in what sense, and what do the best sources say? It is one of the three research output shapes in Module 4.

How to use. Pick a real claim — from a news article, a YouTube video, a social-media post, a parent's casual assertion, a classmate's essay. Not one you already know the answer to. Copy this template to your topic folder as capstone-entry-2-fact-check-memo.md. Fill it in by hand after you have opened every source.

Safety norm — copy verbatim to the top of every memo.

A fact-check memo lives or dies by the integrity of its citations. Every source named below must be status opened-and-confirmed in source-list.md.

Header

Student
Date drafted · Date last revised
Source of the claim being checked (author, outlet, date, URL or physical source)

Part 1 — The claim, stated precisely

Part 1 · Claim

One sentence. Write the claim exactly as it was made — put it in quotes if you can.

Claim being checked
Where the claim came from (one-sentence context)
Why the claim matters — who is affected if it is right or wrong?
Self-check
I did not soften or sharpen the claim. It is what the speaker actually said.
I can imagine the reader wanting to know whether this specific sentence is true.

Part 2 — What would count as evidence

Part 2 · Evidence standards

Before you retrieve, write down what would settle this claim. This is the scoping step for a fact-check.

Evidence that would support the claim
Evidence that would disprove the claim
Source tiers I will look for
Primary (original data, statute, transcript, official publisher)
Secondary (journalism or analysis of primary material)
Tertiary (encyclopedia, summary) — context only
Self-check
The same evidence standards apply to both sides. I did not set a higher bar for evidence that disagrees with what I expect.

Part 3 — Sources opened

Part 3 · Sources opened

Every source below must be status opened-and-confirmed in source-list.md before it appears here. Three is the floor, not a ceiling.

Source 1 Title
Author / publication
Date · URL
Tier

primary secondary tertiary

Status in source-list.md

opened-and-confirmed

What this source says about the claim, in my own words
Source 2 Title
Author / publication
Date · URL
Tier

primary secondary tertiary

Status

opened-and-confirmed

What this source says about the claim, in my own words
Source 3 Title
Author / publication
Date · URL
Tier

primary secondary tertiary

Status

opened-and-confirmed

What this source says about the claim, in my own words

Add additional source sub-blocks as needed.

Part 4 — Triangulation

Part 4 · Triangulation

How do the sources agree or disagree?

Points where two or more sources agree
Points where sources disagree (name the disagreement and which side each source is on)
Any claim I expected to find support for but did not
Self-check
I wrote the disagreements down even when they were inconvenient for my conclusion.
I did not rely on a single source for any load-bearing part of the answer.

Part 5 — The verdict

Choose one. Do not equivocate in the label even if the explanation is nuanced.

True.  The claim matches what the best sources say, without important qualification.
Mostly true.  Correct in its main thrust but needs qualification.
Mixed.  Parts correct, parts not; overall impression is misleading.
Mostly false.  Technically defensible on a narrow reading but creates a misleading impression.
False.  Contradicts what the best sources say.
Unresolved.  Sources insufficient or contradictory.
One-paragraph explanation (the “in what sense” answer — heart of the memo)
Self-check
The label and the paragraph match. I did not write “mostly true” and then spend four sentences explaining why it is actually false.
A reader who only read the verdict box would not be misled about what I found.

Part 6 — What I could not resolve

Part 6 · Unresolved

Every honest fact-check leaves something open. Write down what.

What would it take to resolve these? (a primary source I could not access? an expert? more recent data?)

Closeout

Every source in Part 3 is status opened-and-confirmed in source-list.md.
The verdict in Part 5 and the explanation match.
Part 6 is honest — it names at least one real thing I could not resolve.
The memo reads as something a person could act on — a reader who had been about to repeat the claim now knows whether to.

A note on honesty

False confidence is the most common failure: the memo sounds authoritative, but the three sources were skimmed not read, or two of the three citations trace back to the same upstream claim. The status field is your attestation; Part 4 forces you to write down the disagreements.

False balance is the second: a claim that the evidence clearly disproves gets labeled “mixed” because disagreeing sounds rude. Read the label aloud before picking one. If the evidence says false, write false.

Print this page. Use it.