Key takeaways
- Identify the publisher and their reason for publishing.
- Check the publication date, not just when the result was found.
- Follow claims back to primary evidence.
- Compare with at least one independent source before acting.
Who published it, and why?
Look for an organisation name, author, and an about or contact page. Ask what the publisher gains: a regulator informs, a vendor sells, a researcher reports findings, a news outlet reports and interprets. None of these is automatically wrong, but the motive tells you what to double-check.
How current is it?
In TopicWeaver, "Found" is when the resource was discovered and "Published" is the publisher's date, when available. An article found today may be years old. For fast-moving subjects such as rules, prices or software, an older source may be out of date even if it was accurate when written.
What evidence does it give?
Strong sources link to data, official documents or the original study, and explain their method. Weak sources make confident claims with no trail. Follow at least one link to the primary source and check that it says what the article claims.
A step-by-step checklist
Use this before you rely on a source:
- 1. Publisher identified, with contact details.
- 2. Publication date checked against how fast the subject changes.
- 3. Main claim traced to a primary source.
- 4. Claim matches your actual question, not just the same keywords.
- 5. At least one independent source agrees, or you've noted the disagreement.
- 6. For legal, medical or financial matters, a qualified person reviews before you act.
Worked example (illustrative)
Suppose a topic on EU AI rules surfaces a blog post titled "New AI rule takes effect next month". The checklist says: find who wrote it (a consultancy selling compliance services), check the date (eight months ago), and follow its link to the official text. Then confirm the current timeline on the official source before planning around it. This is an illustration, not a statement about any real rule.
Where does this fit in monitoring?
Evaluation is the review step in the continuous topic monitoring guide. When tracking an industry, apply the checklist to the few results that would change a decision, not to every result.