Have AI evaluate your working source map with this prompt (attach your source map in a PDF or Word document):

# GOAL:

Help me create a complete and actionable journalistic source map.

# INPUT:

Read my working source map in the attached document.

# INSTRUCTIONS:

Conduct a strengths-and-weaknesses analysis of my working source map, as formulated in the prompt, according to the principles under the “Method” heading.

Based on the attached document, perform a strengths-and-weaknesses analysis of my source map. The source map does not need to contain concrete names of individuals, organizations, documents, titles, websites, or links: evaluate and specify exclusively types of sources, job titles, roles, document categories, registers, data sources, and forms of first-hand observation.

## Checkpoints

Explicitly evaluate:

### 1. Completeness relative to the timeline
- Is each event from the timeline listed as an individual row or clearly recognizable test question in the source map?
- Is a source route missing for any event?
- Is it clear for each event which fact, action, or relationship needs to be verified?

### 2. Completeness across the four source columns
- Does each row give sufficient attention to people / human sources?
- Does each row include public publications, documents, and data?
- Does each row include potential confidential or internal documents?
- Does each row include a potential form of first-hand observation, test, analysis, or verification?
- If a column is reasonably not relevant, explain why and provide an alternative where possible.

### 3. Comparison with the checklists from the document
- Compare the listed source types against the checklists under the “Method” heading. Check whether suitable types are missing, including:
    - responsible parties: individuals, companies, organizations, and governing bodies;
    - affected parties: consumers, users, patients, employees, customers, members, residents, and citizens;
    - witnesses: researchers, legal experts, inspectors, regulators, watchdogs, advocates, emergency responders/aid workers, journalists, competitors, business associates, local residents, and passersby;
    - public sources: media, press releases, documentaries, academic publications, studies, books, registers, annual reports, financial statements, policy documents, meeting minutes, laws and regulations, permits, court rulings, and databases;
    - confidential sources: internal instructions, correspondence, drafts, minutes, contracts, invoices, quotes, log files, audits, complaints, incident reports, investigation files, and archival records;
    - first-hand observation: site visits, observation, physical objects, measurements, tests, visual material, archival research, and data analysis.

### 4. Testability and reliability
- Is each source suitable to actually prove the intended event, rather than merely providing background or an opinion?
- Is there at least one opportunity for independent verification or triangulation for each key fact?
- Are there source risks, such as lack of access, conflict of interest, limited expertise, incomplete records, or confidentiality/NDAs?

# OUTPUT:

Present the analysis in this table:

| Event from timeline | Present source types in my map | Strength | Weakness or missing source type | Missing column(s) | Suggestion for addition or improvement | Why this makes the event more testable |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [event] | [people, publications/data, confidential, first-hand observation] | [what is already usable] | [what is missing or cannot provide sufficient evidence] | [people / publications / confidential / first-hand observation] | [types of sources, without concrete names] | [evidentiary value, comparison, or secondary source] |

## Missing source types

After the table, provide an additional check based on the checklists from the document:

| Source category from the document | Already present in my source map? | Missing or underrepresented type | Relevant for which event(s)? | Suggestion |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Responsible parties / decision-makers |  |  |  |  |
| Implementers / staff |  |  |  |  |
| Affected parties / victims |  |  |  |  |
| Beneficiaries / profiteers |  |  |  |  |
| Witnesses / bystanders |  |  |  |  |
| Regulators / inspectors |  |  |  |  |
| Experts / scientists |  |  |  |  |
| Advocates / competitors |  |  |  |  |
| Public publications and media |  |  |  |  |
| Registers, databases, and annual reports |  |  |  |  |
| Laws, regulations, policy, and official decisions |  |  |  |  |
| Permits, inspections, and enforcement |  |  |  |  |
| Financial documents and transaction data |  |  |  |  |
| Internal communication and decision-making |  |  |  |  |
| Contracts, tenders, and subsidies |  |  |  |  |
| Case law, complaints, and appeals |  |  |  |  |
| Scientific and technical documentation |  |  |  |  |
| First-hand observation, measurement, test, or data analysis |  |  |  |  |

## Final evaluation

Conclude with:

- a brief assessment of coverage: which timeline events are well, moderately, or poorly covered;
- a maximum of five priority additions in terms of source types;
- one short warning regarding the greatest risk of tunnel vision or insufficient verification.

> Important: do not secretly rewrite my source map and do not create an entirely new source map. Analyze what is there, identify missing types, and provide targeted suggestions per row. Do not mention concrete names, titles, organizations, websites, or links.

# METHOD:

## How to create a source map?
Tracking down sources is not just about who and what, but also about where and when. Where are the people and documents located? And when in the course of events do they appear? We therefore don't just make a list of potential sources, but immediately map them out onto a ‘map’.
Just as with the hypothesis and the timeline, the rule applies: use your imagination. Focus on the sources you want before you begin searching and interviewing. Here are a number of techniques to map potential sources:

## CREATE A SOURCE MAP
Your timeline provides an initial impression of the sources you need or can use:
- You find human sources in the timeline by looking at the subjects of the sentences. All stakeholders should be in the timeline: as perpetrator, as victim, or as witness.
- You find documents and data by looking at the verbs and asking yourself: how was this action recorded, registered, or documented?

Then place these sources into a ‘source map’. Write the timeline in the first column and then work from left to right on each row.

1. First ask yourself which stakeholders and witnesses you can interview about the event. Who will likely want to talk to you?
2. Next, consider public documents (publications), such as websites, articles, reports, and books, that can clarify the topic.
3. Then shift your focus to confidential or private documents that you might be able to get your hands on.
4. And finally, ask yourself what you can observe, experience, or test yourself. Which relevant locations can you visit? Which physical objects can you describe or handle yourself?

This creates a detailed source map. Here is an example of such a source map, based on the timeline about the hazardous plastic water pipes (see previous chapters):

| EVENT | INTERVIEWS (WITNESSES) | PUBLIC DOCUMENTS | CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS | FIRST-HAND OBSERVATIONS |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Pipe manufacturers decide to use the cheapest chemicals for the production of their plastic water pipes. | * Supplier  * Pipe factory manager | * Price comparison |  |  |
| Chemical companies sell these chemicals to pipe manufacturers. | * Pipe factory manager  * Chemical plant spokesperson |  | * Purchase order |  |
| The government inspects drinking water for substances other than the deadly chemicals. | * Inspector | * Statutory regulations  * Inspection report |  | * Going on inspection rounds with inspector |
| Pipe manufacturers produce their goods using deadly chemicals that leak into drinking water. | * Manager | * Patent | * Recipe / Formulation | * Guided tour of factory |
| Plumbers install more plastic drinking water pipes than pipes made of other materials. | * Plumber | * Annual report  * Database  * Trade journal articles |  | * Accompanying plumber on the job |
| Scientists determine during experiments that chemicals from plastic pipes end up in drinking water. | * Eric Arvin | * Scientific paper in Water Research, 36 (2002) |  | * Lab visit |
| Biologists observe during tests that the chemicals deform human cells. | * Cell biologist | * Scientific paper |  | * Lab visit |
| Doctors record numerous deaths as a result of diseases caused by these chemicals. | * Public Health Inspectorate  * Doctor | * Database  * Report |  |  |
| Scientists advise the European Commission to ban the use of these chemicals in consumer products. | * Initiator  * European Commission  * MEP | * Urgent appeal / open letter  * Advisory report |  |  |

The purpose of a source map is to brainstorm as many sources as possible before actually starting your investigation. Again, use your imagination. Brainstorm. An ideal source map contains enough reliable sources across the different categories to start the investigation. The map shows whom you can interview, but also which documents to ask for in interviews and where to meet. You don't have to consult all of these sources later, but it is good to know what options exist. After all, one source may be more appealing or reliable than another. Not everyone will want to talk to you, and not all documents will be shared with you. The source map helps you not only brainstorm potential sources, but also make deliberate choices, such as:

- Which source is the richest; contains the most (reliable) information?
- Which is the most powerful and convincing?
- Which is the most surprising or emotionally rich (dramatic)?
- Which is the most visual/vivid?
- Which documents are the hardest to obtain?
- Which source can you use as a backup if your first choice proves unavailable?

## CHECKLISTS
Use the following lists to verify whether you have identified all possible sources.

### Actors
People and organizations that almost always appear in investigative stories (the usual suspects) include:

#### Perpetrators / Responsible parties

- individual
- company
- organization
- governing body / public authority

#### Victims / Affected parties

- consumers
- users
- patients
- employees
- customers
- members
- residents
- citizens

#### Witnesses

- researchers
- legal experts / lawyers
- auditors / inspectors
- regulators / watchdogs
- advocates / lobby groups
- aid workers / emergency responders
- journalists
- competitors
- business associates
- local residents
- passersby

### Public documents (publications)

Most documents that investigative journalists need are public. You can find them online, in libraries, in databases, and in archives. Among others:

- media articles
- media broadcasts
- press releases
- documentaries
- academic publications
- research reports
- doctoral dissertations and master's theses
- public lectures, classes, and conference contributions
- books
- encyclopedias
- reference works
- public registers
- annual reports and filings
- financial statements / balance sheets
- commercial register / company registry filings
- formal opinions, recommendations, advice
- policy papers
- meeting minutes (of public bodies)
- legislation and regulations
- permits / licenses
- court rulings
- databases

Two important considerations when searching for public documents:

- Although almost all public documents are online, finding them is not always easy. Sometimes the assistance of a librarian or archivist is indispensable to accelerate the search. (See also chapter 11.)
- Not all libraries and archives are public. Companies, NGOs, and even private individuals may keep books, clippings, or other public documents for private use. Only by visiting them in person might you gain access.

### Confidential documents
Confidential documents are not produced for public distribution, but for circulation within a small circle. They are literally created to keep each other working. They are instructions. A passport, for instance, is an instruction from your national government to foreign border guards to let you pass. A contract is an order to deliver something. A report is an impetus to learn from something or take action.
Confidential documents reside in the drawers and on the laptops of people you interview. Therefore, before heading out, try to imagine who possesses which document. That can be a document they produced themselves about the events, or a document they received from someone else.
Companies, for example, are legally required to share confidential documents with trade unions. The unions then share these with the works council and — when it suits them — with journalists. Journalists share them with colleagues. One of those colleagues shares them with her husband, who works for an investment firm. The investment advisor shares the knowledge with his clients. And so on.
Note: ‘confidential’ is not the same as ‘classified’ or ‘secret.’ The vast majority of confidential documents are not state secrets, and sources can usually share them with you without facing dismissal or prosecution.
Non-public documents, intended for private use or small-circle circulation, include:

- internal investigation
- unpublished (confidential) plan
- internal or personal report
- internal evaluation
- internal assessment
- internal survey
- internal complaints (e.g. to an ombudsman)
- internal database
- private photograph
- private video
- private audio recording
- purchase order
- assignment / commission
- contract
- delivery slip
- proof of purchase, receipt
- bank statement
- meeting minutes
- personal notes
- recipe / formula
- correspondence (WhatsApp, email)
- case file / dossier
- personal diary
- logbook / shift log
- subpoena / summons
- fine / penalty notice
- identity documents

#### Corporate documents

Documents related to business activities include:

- corporate website
- annual financial report
- balance sheet / financial statements
- sustainability report (under CSRD and CSDDD)
- commercial register / company registry extract
- advertisements
- product catalog and price list
- company newsletter / staff magazine
- customer newsletter
- equity analyst report
- market research
- emissions registration (to emissions authorities)
- Natura 2000 permit
- environmental permit (Environmental Management Act / Environment and Planning Act permit)
- hazardous substances permit
- filings with enterprise agencies (e.g. RVO)
- filings with financial market authorities (e.g. AFM, SEC)
- convictions / penalty orders
- patent
- investor prospectus
- mandatory stock exchange filings
- investor or client presentations
- staff presentations
- shareholders' meeting records
- evaluations
- management reports

#### Government documents

Documents produced by government authorities include:

- official requests (from ministers, parliament, councils, or citizens)
- external advisory reports (plus various drafts and versions)
- advisory opinions from constitutional bodies (Council of State, regulatory oversight boards, Ombudsman, advisory councils)
- audits by Courts of Audit, economic policy bureaus, environmental assessment agencies
- civil service strategy memos (containing options and advice)
- official policy advice
- proposals or motions by elected representatives
- personal notes from informal meetings
- emails, WhatsApp messages
- meeting minutes (including attendance lists and reports)
- written parliamentary questions and answers
- draft legislation / bills (with advisory opinions)
- preliminary consultations / parliamentary previews before bill submission
- statutory articles / explanatory memoranda
- coalition agreement / government platform
- strategic policy pacts (Climate Accord, Pension Accord)

#### EU documents

Documents produced by European institutions include:

- strategy or vision document
- Green Paper: discussion document, contains ideas to stimulate debate and invite parties to participate in consultation
- White Paper: concrete European Commission proposal for debate with the European Parliament and stakeholders, aimed at reaching consensus and legislation
- Directive: an EU legal act requiring member states to achieve a particular result without dictating the means
- Regulation (directly applicable in member states)
- European Commission Decision (deriving from legislation)
- Delegated acts, implementing acts (detailed execution of legislation)
- Case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union
- Staff Working Documents (SWD), such as impact assessments, studies, and working documents not politically approved
- Regulatory Scrutiny Board opinions (pre-legislative quality check under better regulation principles)
- European Parliament resolutions
- Non-papers: unofficial documents, informal preparation of compromises and solutions
- Parliamentary questions and answers
- Transparency registers of meetings with European Commissioners, senior officials, and MEPs
- European Court of Auditors reports, audits
- European Council conclusions: political direction from EU leaders
- Council of Ministers conclusions: political direction from sectoral ministers
- Annotated agendas of the Council of the European Union
- Country-specific policy position papers / explanatory fiches on EU proposals

#### Legal documents

Documents associated with court proceedings include, in civil law (between private parties):

- writ of summons / statement of claim outlining what the plaintiff seeks from the defendant
- statement of defence: reply to the summons
- record of witness or expert examination
- expert report: independent expert investigation
- interlocutory / interim judgment (public)
- final judgment / ruling (public)

And in administrative law (concerning government actions):

- administrative decision by a governing authority
- notice of objection / administrative review filed by an individual or business
- decision on objection issued by the governing body
- notice of appeal against the decision on objection, filed with the court
- statement of defence against the appeal, submitted by the governing body to the court
- public hearing transcripts / notices

### First-hand observation

What can you see, experience, or observe yourself regarding the events?

- Can you visit a location and look around?
- Can you try out or test something yourself?
- Can you participate in something (undercover or openly)?
- Can sources demonstrate something to you?