Public Statement Fact Verification
in Tennessee.
Before a statement about an internal incident goes out, every factual assertion in it should be checked against the evidence. Watchtower does that checking.
The statement becomes the record. Make sure it is accurate.
When an organization publishes anything about an internal incident — a press release, a customer notification, a regulatory filing, a letter to a lender — it creates a permanent, quotable record. Every factual claim in it will be tested against whatever emerges later.
The danger is rarely deliberate dishonesty. It is drafting under time pressure, where communications professionals write from a summary rather than from evidence, and confident phrasing gets attached to facts that were never actually established. 'No customer data was affected.' 'This was an isolated incident.' 'The individual acted alone.' Each is a factual assertion, and each may not yet be supported.
Verification is a narrow, specific service: take the draft, isolate every factual claim, and check each one against the investigative record. Supported, unsupported, or contradicted — and where it is unsupported, say what would be needed to support it.
When verification is worth the delay
Especially where the statement will be relied on by others.
A customer or client notification about an incident
A press statement drafted before the investigation concluded
A regulatory filing or disclosure containing factual assertions
A communication to a lender, investor or acquirer
Language asserting containment, isolation or sole responsibility
A statement drafted by people without direct access to the evidence
How verification runs
Claim Extraction
We isolate every factual assertion in the draft, including the implicit ones that read as context rather than claims.
Evidence Check
Each claim is tested against the investigative record and marked supported, unsupported or contradicted.
Gap Analysis
For unsupported claims we state what evidence would be needed, so you can decide between investigating further and rewording.
Annotated Return
The draft returned with each claim marked and sourced, for your communications team and counsel to work from.
What verification catches
Absolutes nobody established
'No data was affected' and 'acted alone' are the two most frequently unsupported claims we see.
Timeline drift
Dates in drafts routinely differ from the evidenced chronology, and timelines are what outside parties check first.
Implied claims
Statements imply facts without asserting them. Implications are quoted back just as readily as assertions.
A record of the check
Documented verification demonstrates the organization took reasonable care before publishing.
Statement verification, answered.
No. Communications and legal drafting is your team's work, and it should be. We check the factual accuracy of what they have drafted against the evidence, which is a separate discipline and works better kept separate.
Usually within a day or two, and faster when a statement is time-critical. Verification is much quicker than investigation because it checks existing claims against an existing record rather than developing new facts.
We say so, and we say what would be required to support it. You then choose between commissioning the additional work and rewording the statement to reflect what is actually known. Both are legitimate; publishing the unsupported version is the option worth avoiding.
No. Internal statements to a board, communications to a lender, insurance submissions and regulatory filings all create records that get tested later. Any assertion that others will rely on is worth verifying first.
Related business & corporate matters casework
Matters we handle alongside this one.
Check it before it becomes the record.
Send the draft and the investigative file, and we will mark every factual claim against the evidence.