Methodology
How We Report
The process, the source grading, and the gates every report has to clear.
Every report on this site follows the same pipeline, and no stage is optional. This page summarises it in English; the full editorial standard is maintained in Chinese.
The Pipeline
- Framing — the research director defines the question, its scope, and what a useful answer looks like.
- Deep research — multi-source evidence gathering into a working research file.
- Panel review — red teams and domain experts argue the draft findings; a neutral synthesizer separates genuine consensus from genuine disagreement.
- Narrative brief — the findings are written up as a report, with data visualisations built from the same verified numbers.
- Three Taiwanese vantage points — implications are resolved for the state, for industry intermediaries, and for SMEs.
- Three gates before publication — red-team challenge, source verification, and human editor sign-off.
How We Grade Sources
- A — governments, international organisations, company filings, peer-reviewed research, established mainstream media. May carry a major conclusion on its own.
- B — think tanks, columns, trade press, corporate blogs. Supporting evidence; not sufficient alone.
- C — social posts, anonymous claims, second-hand accounts. Treated as sentiment only, never as a factual base.
A deep report requires at least three sources; contested topics must present at least two positions. High-risk subjects — cross-Strait military affairs, semiconductor export controls, allegations against individuals, financial or legal advice — are held to a higher standard and always require human sign-off.
Corrections
If you find an error, write to the editorial desk and we will check it against the source and correct the record.