Judging a source before you believe it

Four questions, in order

1 of 1 lessons

Ask these before you use anything, and ask them in this order. The order matters: the later questions are wasted effort if an earlier one fails.

1. Who published this? Not who posted it — who published it. A screenshot of a register is not the register. An aggregator's copy of a sanctions list is not the sanctions list. Follow it back to the body that produced it, and if you cannot, that is your answer.

2. Why did they publish it? Registers exist to be relied on and are usually careful. Press offices exist to persuade. Commercial aggregators exist to sell subscriptions and have an interest in appearing complete. None of these is disqualifying; all of them change how much weight a single entry carries.

3. When does it describe? Two dates, and they are rarely the same: when the record was created, and when it was last updated. A company register showing a director is showing who was recorded as a director on the date the register was last written to. Sanctions lists are amended constantly, and delistings are quieter than listings.

4. What would have to be true for this to be wrong? If the answer is "somebody would have had to make a clerical error", the record is probably sound. If it is "somebody would have had to not update it", assume they did not. If it is "somebody would have had to be honest", stop.

This material is education, not certification, and it does not replace accredited professional or medical training. It describes how the association works; it is not legal advice and confers no powers.

The association counts visits with its own tables — no advertising, no third party, and nothing that follows you off this site. It is off unless you say otherwise, and you can change your mind at any time.

What is stored in your browser