CanuckDUCK Method & Corrections Standard

Purpose

CanuckDUCK publishes civic and policy analysis that should be understandable, checkable, and correctable. This standard explains how public CanuckDUCK articles should handle sources, uncertainty, interpretation, and corrections.

The goal is simple: readers should be able to see what CanuckDUCK is claiming, why it is claiming it, what evidence supports it, where uncertainty remains, and how to request a correction if something is wrong.

What CanuckDUCK analysis tries to do

CanuckDUCK analysis is designed to:

• organize public information into a clear explanation;
• trace important claims back to sources;
• separate facts from interpretation;
• identify likely causal relationships and downstream effects;
• make uncertainty visible rather than hiding it;
• correct errors when they are found; and
• improve over time as better evidence becomes available.

CanuckDUCK does not ask readers to accept analysis because an AI system produced it. The value is in whether the work is clear, sourced, reviewable, and corrigible.

Source standard

Public CanuckDUCK analysis should prefer sources that readers can inspect, including:

• legislation, regulations, government notices, and official publications;
• parliamentary or committee records where relevant;
• court, regulator, or public-agency material where relevant;
• credible journalism and specialist reporting;
• academic, technical, or professional material where useful; and
• clearly identified primary documents whenever possible.

When an article uses a secondary explanation, it should avoid treating that explanation as stronger than the underlying source. When possible, the public article should point readers toward the original source or describe the source basis clearly enough that it can be checked.

Claim categories

CanuckDUCK articles should distinguish among different kinds of statements:

• Source fact: what a bill, document, public record, or cited source says.
• Observed fact: what is visible in public records or public events.
• Interpretation: CanuckDUCK's explanation of what the source material likely means.
• Causal analysis: CanuckDUCK's assessment of how one policy, decision, or event may affect another.
• Uncertainty: a place where available evidence does not support a firm conclusion.
• Correction or update: a later change made because new evidence, better context, or reader feedback changed the article.

This distinction matters because a sourced fact and an analytical judgment should not be presented as if they carry the same level of certainty.

Causal-analysis standard

When CanuckDUCK describes causes, impacts, or downstream effects, it should avoid pretending that complex systems are simple.

A good causal claim should make clear:

• what factor is being discussed;
• what effect is being suggested;
• whether the effect is direct, indirect, conditional, or speculative;
• what evidence supports the connection;
• what important counterfactors may exist; and
• what would change the conclusion.

Where the evidence is limited, CanuckDUCK should say so plainly.

Use of AI

CanuckDUCK may use AI systems to help gather, organize, summarize, compare, and draft material. AI assistance does not remove the need for review.

For public analysis, AI-assisted work should still be checked for:

• source accuracy;
• unsupported claims;
• missing context;
• misleading certainty;
• public/internal lane separation;
• privacy and security issues; and
• correction readiness.

AI output is a drafting and analysis aid, not a substitute for evidence.

Corrections standard

CanuckDUCK should correct public analysis when a material error is identified.

A correction may be needed when:

• a source was misread;
• a fact was wrong;
• a quotation or reference was inaccurate;
• important context was omitted;
• a causal claim was overstated;
• a status claim was unclear or misleading; or
• new information materially changes the article.

Minor spelling, grammar, formatting, or readability fixes may be made without a formal correction note if they do not change the meaning.

Correction path

A public CanuckDUCK article should give readers a way to flag problems. A useful correction request should identify:

• the article title or URL;
• the specific statement at issue;
• why the statement may be wrong or misleading;
• any source that supports the correction; and
• whether the issue is factual, interpretive, contextual, or wording-related.

CanuckDUCK should review correction requests in good faith. If a correction is accepted, the article should be updated with a note that explains the material change. If a correction is rejected, CanuckDUCK should be able to explain why.

Update notes

When a public article changes in a material way, the update note should be clear enough for a reader to understand what changed. It does not need to be long, but it should not hide meaningful revisions.

Examples of material changes include:

• adding or removing a substantive claim;
• changing the strength of a conclusion;
• correcting a factual error;
• adding important missing context;
• changing the source basis for a claim; or
• clarifying a status or certification boundary.

What this standard does not claim

This standard does not claim that CanuckDUCK is always correct. It does not claim that CanuckDUCK holds third-party certification, official status, or government approval. It describes a method for producing public analysis that can be checked and corrected.

Status

Public draft for review and publication. Once landed, this standard should be linked from public CanuckDUCK analysis that relies on the Method & Corrections process.