Kleptopedia / The Anatomy of the System
RU

Source Evaluation Criteria

Evidence Hierarchy

Four-Tier Source Evidentiary Hierarchy

Concrete admission and weighting criteria governing all claims in the knowledge base.

TIER 1
Primary Documents & Regulatory Registries (Official / Primary)
Sanctions listings (OFAC, UK, EU), court filings, official audits, UN/WB statistical releases
Highest Weight: Standalone Proof
TIER 2
Peer-Reviewed Monographs & Investigative Consortia (Investigative / Academic)
Academic monographs (Dawisha, Galeotti, Volkov), OCCRP investigations, GI-TOC reports
High Weight: Structural Baseline
TIER 3
Analytical Reports & Expert Assessments (Analytical Assessment)
Atlantic Council, Chatham House, RUSI, Lowy Institute, and expert policy briefs
Medium Weight: Qualified Context
TIER 4
Non-Admissible Channels & Speculation (Excluded by Policy)
Anonymous Telegram channels, unverified single-source social media leaks, rumors
Zero Admission Policy

Source Evaluation Criteria

Parent: Sources & Bibliography · Methodology

This page defines the concrete rules used to admit, rank and label sources on the site. It is the operational companion to the high-level source policy stated in the Methodology.

1. Four-Tier Hierarchy

TierLabel used in textTypical materialTreatment
1Primary / near-primaryOfficial sanctions lists (OFAC, UK, EU, Canada, Australia); court judgments and filings available in open repositories; formal government reports; statistical releases from UNODC, World Bank, IMF and comparable bodiesHighest weight. Can support a claim almost alone if the document is clear.
2Secondary – Investigative / AcademicMonographs with full source apparatus (e.g. Dawisha 2014, Galeotti 2018); OCCRP and comparable consortium investigations; GI-TOC reports; peer-reviewed articles and university-press books; long-form investigations by outlets with transparent editorial standardsHigh weight. Preferred basis for structural claims.
3Secondary – AnalyticalThink-tank reports and expert assessments (Atlantic Council, Brookings, Chatham House, Lowy Institute, RUSI, etc.); clearly labelled expert commentaryMedium weight. Always signalled as “assessment by…” or “secondary analysis”. Cannot be the sole support for a contested factual claim.
4ExcludedAnonymous social-media posts, unverified Telegram or closed-channel material, single-source rumour, material that cannot be independently located and verified by a third partyNever used as the sole or primary basis for any claim on the site.

2. Practical Tests Applied to Every Source

Before a source is admitted into the bibliography or used to support a knowledge unit, the following checks are performed:

  1. Locatability — Can a reader independently retrieve the source (or a stable archived version) without special access?
  2. Transparency of method — Does the source itself disclose how it obtained its information, or is the method opaque?
  3. Corroboration potential — Is the claim also present (even partially) in at least one other independent Tier-1 or Tier-2 source, or is it unique?
  4. Conflict signalling — If the source is known to conflict with other high-quality sources on the same point, is that conflict noted?
  5. Date and context — Is the temporal scope of the claim clear? Outdated material is not presented as current without explicit qualification.

3. Labelling Conventions in Text

  • Direct documentary support → neutral factual phrasing + citation.
  • Secondary consensus across multiple Tier-2 sources → “documented in the secondary literature” or equivalent + multiple citations.
  • Single Tier-3 assessment → “according to [author/organisation]” or “assessment by…”.
  • Contested quantitative estimates → range or “estimates vary; open sources cite figures from X to Y”.
  • Absence of evidence → never treated as evidence of absence.

4. Preference for Structural Over Sensational

When two sources of comparable tier exist, preference is given to the one that:

  • illuminates under-emphasised structural mechanisms, routes or historical continuities, or
  • synthesises material that is otherwise scattered across paywalled or language-isolated publications.

High-visibility individual scandals already exhaustively covered in mainstream English- and Russian-language media receive lower priority for new synthesis unless they illuminate a structural pattern that is still under-documented on the site.

5. Language and Access Notes

Sources are accepted in any language provided a stable public location exists. English and Russian primary/secondary material is preferred for accessibility to the bilingual audience, but high-quality sources in other languages are not excluded. Access notes (paywall, archive, PDF availability) are recorded in the master bibliography where useful.

Key Sources & Evidence Base

  • OCCRP editorial and sourcing standards secondary
  • GI-TOC research practice secondary
  • Academic citation norms (university-press monographs) secondary