How It Works

The Narrative Gap monitors news coverage from hundreds of sources across multiple regions and languages. Our system identifies what is being claimed, who is saying it, and how consistently those claims hold up across independent reporting.

Multi-source analysis

Rather than relying on any single outlet, we look at how a story is reported across different media ecosystems. Claims that appear independently in multiple regions carry more weight than those from a single source or media tradition. When coverage is heavily concentrated in one region, we flag that so readers can judge accordingly.

Competing explanations

For contested questions — where reasonable people disagree about what is happening or why — we track multiple explanations and assess how well each one holds up against the available evidence. This helps readers see the full landscape of possibilities rather than being funnelled toward a single narrative.

Confidence levels

Our confidence assessments reflect how well-supported a claim is by diverse, independent evidence. Higher confidence means more sources, from more regions, pointing in the same direction. We use plain language rather than misleading percentages:

• High confidence — widely reported and consistent across sources
• Moderate confidence — reported by several sources, but some disagree
• Low confidence — few sources, or sources disagree significantly

Intent and motive assessments

When we assess what an actor "likely" intends or what their motives may be, these are analytical inferences drawn from patterns in reported evidence — not allegations or statements of personal knowledge. Evidence may be incomplete or misleading, and our inferences may be wrong. They represent the best reading of available reporting, not established fact.

What we don't do

• Our assessments are evidence-based — when we say something is "likely", that reflects the weight of independent reporting, not opinion or speculation
• We don't take sides — we present the evidence landscape
• We don't rely on any single source or algorithm
• We don't make allegations — our assessments are analytical inferences, not accusations

How we measure confidence

Our confidence in a claim depends on three things: how many independent sources report it, how diverse those sources are (different countries, different editorial perspectives), and whether any sources contradict it. A claim reported by 12 sources across 4 regions with no contradictions gets high confidence. A claim from 2 sources in 1 region gets low confidence — even if it turns out to be true.

Limitations

• We can only analyse what gets published. If something isn't reported by any of our sources, we won't know about it.
• Our source coverage is uneven. Some regions and languages are better represented than others.
• Evidence quality varies. Official statements from governments aren't necessarily more truthful than investigative reporting — we weight by independence and corroboration, not by authority.
• Our system scores evidence automatically. It can miss nuance, context, and connections that a human analyst would catch.
• Predictions are probabilistic estimates, not certainties. Even high-confidence assessments can be wrong.

All analysis is advisory. Confidence assessments reflect the balance of available evidence at the time of analysis and may change as new information emerges.