Editorial Methodology

Review process

Resident submissions are reviewed for internal consistency, the presence of supporting materials (screenshots, photographs, invoices, correspondence), and alignment with patterns documented across multiple residents. The platform prioritises submissions that include dated material and a clear description of the issue.

How a submission moves through review

Every submission is recorded with a reference code and passes through recorded stages: received, upload verified, awaiting review, clarification requested, redaction required, editorial review, and then approved, withheld, or archived. Each change of stage is logged with a timestamp and the reviewer responsible, so the handling of any entry can be reconstructed.

Uploaded files are stored privately and are readable only by named editorial reviewers. Original files are never published. Where material is published, it is a redacted derivative or a written summary. Publication status is tracked separately from review status, and a submission may be reviewed and still withheld — for example where privacy, safety, fairness, or verification concerns outweigh the public-interest value.

Reviewed does not mean proven

A verification label describes what material the platform examined — not whether an allegation is true, and not that any law or regulation was breached. Allegations remain allegations unless independently verified by a competent authority or court.

The archive uses 8 source-specific labels. Each one describes the material examined, not the truth of an allegation:

• Court document reviewed — A filed court document was examined. Court filings may contain competing allegations by different parties; allegations by either side remain allegations unless determined by a court.
• Management correspondence reviewed — Written correspondence from management or its representatives was examined. Reviewing the correspondence does not confirm the accuracy of statements inside it.
• Resident-submitted media reviewed — A resident-supplied screenshot, photograph, video still, invoice or message thread was examined and found internally consistent. This does not mean the allegation has been proven.
• Multiple resident reports reviewed — Comparable material or accounts were examined from more than one resident. Corroboration between residents is not independent verification.
• Resident report only — A resident account with no supporting documentary material submitted or reviewed.
• External reporting — Drawn from independent third-party reporting. External coverage is context, not confirmation of every claim in this archive.
• Verification pending — Material has been received but review is not complete. No conclusion should be drawn from the entry in its current state.
• Staff account – recording reviewed — An audio recording in which staff describe their own working conditions was reviewed by the platform. The recording is not published, and names and identifying details are withheld. Statements in the recording are the speakers’ own accounts and have not been independently verified against contracts, payroll or employer records.

The same definitions appear on the Source Verification Policy page and in the Evidence Archive legend.

Distinguishing allegations from verified facts

Resident-reported claims are labelled with framings such as “resident-reported,” “according to submissions reviewed by this platform,” and “not independently verified.” The platform does not present allegations as findings of fact. Reviewing a document, screenshot or recording establishes only what material the platform examined; it does not, on its own, prove the allegation the material describes. Allegations remain allegations unless confirmed by a competent independent authority or court.

Right of response

Management, contractors, and any named party are invited to submit clarifications, corrections, or rebuttals via the Right of Response page. Reasonable responses received will be published in full alongside the relevant section. Submissions may be reviewed for relevance and personal contact details are not published.

What the platform does not claim

• Does not assert criminal guilt or civil liability.
• Does not assert that construction defects are legally established.
• Does not name individual workers, technicians, or contractor staff.
• Does not provide legal, financial, medical, or investment advice.
• Does not represent any party in any legal proceeding.

Source weighting

Independent third-party reporting (for example COFEK’s February 2025 article) is treated as external context, not as confirmation of every claim documented on the platform. Resident screenshots and photographs are treated as resident-reported experiences. Management statements, if submitted, are published in full and contextualised against resident submissions.

Corrections

The platform corrects errors of fact, removes content where a credible privacy or accuracy concern is raised, and updates entries as new information becomes available. See the Corrections Policy for the process.