Source assurance for public communications

Every important claim, ready to stand behind.

Alder builds publication-ready briefing packages from public reports: a concise decision brief, audience-ready copy, and a claim-level evidence map that keeps sources, qualifications, and uncertainty attached.

Ask about the CAD $175 pilot See a sample

The Evidence-Checked Briefing Pack

For associations, nonprofits, and small communications teams that need to communicate research accurately without turning source verification into a separate internal project.

Built for confident review and publication. Each consequential claim arrives with its source location, support status, and necessary qualifications, so reviewers can quickly see what is solid, what needs context, and what should not be repeated without revision.

Decision brief of up to 600 words

Core findings, practical implications, and limitations, written for busy internal readers without overstating the evidence.

Audience adaptation of up to 200 words

Newsletter-ready copy for members, supporters, or stakeholders—not merely a shorter version of the brief.

Evidence Integrity Map

Consequential claims mapped to exact source locations and labelled supported, qualified, or unclear, with causal overreach, denominator problems, and essential caveats flagged.

Demonstration

A complete briefing package, with the evidence built in.

This uncommissioned sample uses Statistics Canada’s 2025 study on concern about online misinformation. Its evidence map preserves the scope, methodology, and causation qualifications that responsible publication requires. The sample does not imply affiliation or endorsement.

Open the public source

Brief excerpt

Concern is widespread—but its relationships with trust and civic engagement are complicated.

Statistics Canada found that 59% of Canadians aged 15 and older were very or extremely concerned about online misinformation in 2023. Highly concerned respondents were much more likely to report checking news against another source, but concern was not independently associated with lower general trust in media after adjustment for sociodemographic characteristics.

Claim	Source	Review note
59% highly concerned	Overview; Table 1	Canadians 15+, 2023
69% regularly fact-check	Fact-checking section	Self-reported; source quality unknown
No adjusted link to lower media trust	Media-trust section	Do not convert to a causal claim

A deliberately simple process

No sprawling engagement and no recurring commitment. Start with one suitable public source and decide from the result whether the format deserves another use.

Step 01

Send the source

Share the public report and tell us who needs to understand it. We confirm whether it fits the pilot scope.

Step 02

Receive the package

Get the brief, newsletter copy, and source table together, with uncertainty and limitations preserved.

Step 03

Make one revision

Return one consolidated set of comments so the final copy better matches your audience and voice.

AI-assisted, evidence-led workflow

AI supports structured extraction, drafting, and source comparison. Outputs are organized for human inspection, with claim locations and material uncertainty made visible before delivery. The service does not substitute for legal, medical, financial, or subject-matter expert advice.