TheLogically Ltd. is a UK-registered private company, trading under the name ‘Logically’. Logically Fact Checking is a dedicated unit at Logically set up exclusively for the purposes of fact-checking online mis- and disinformation. Please see answer 1.2 for details on how the fact checking unit is structured and how it relates to the rest of the company.

The information requested is publicly available on our website at: https://www.logically.ai/fact-check and www.logically.ai/factchecks/transparency

We also show the following statement on our website on our Transparency page (https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/transparency)

“Logically was founded in 2017 by Entrepreneur, Engineer and CEO Lyric Jain.
Lyric was named Enterprise CXO Leader of the Year in the CogX Awards 2021.
Lyric Jain remains the only person with significant control of Logically.”

Our Transparency page also contains details of our motivations, structure and purpose.

The FAQ section on our fact checking landing page (https://www.logically.ai/fact-check) has our statement on editorial independence (please see 2.5 for more on this), an introduction to our fact checking unit and an explanation of the unit’s processes. 

TheLogically Ltd. is a UK-registered private company, trading under the name ‘Logically’. Logically Fact-Checking is a dedicated unit at Logically, set up exclusively for the purposes of fact-checking online mis- and disinformation. See details of TheLogically Ltd's registration with Companies House in the UK here: https://bit.ly/3lBy0UQ

Details of the company's registration, ownership, and funding can be found at the bottom of its "Transparency" page: https://bit.ly/3AvaMUP 

On the same page, it states: “Logically was founded in 2017 by Entrepreneur, Engineer and CEO Lyric Jain.

Lyric was named Enterprise CXO Leader of the Year in the CogX Awards 2021.

Lyric Jain remains the only person with significant control of Logically.”

1) Logically was founded in July 2017 by CEO Lyric Jain to develop technologies and products that reduce harms associated with mis- and disinformation.

2) At the time of writing, Logically employs over 187 staff across several territories (India, USA, UK, and rest of Europe). Of these, 31 are dedicated members of the fact checking unit covering the UK, India and Sweden. Besides the fact checking unit, Logically has personnel in product development, technology research and development, marketing, administrative, and leadership roles.

The fact checking unit consists of 15 fact checkers, six senior fact checkers, four assistant editors responsible for copy-editing and editorial quality assurance, and four regional leads responsible for ensuring high editorial standards and managing the day-to-day operations. The unit is headed by the global head of fact checking and supported by a compliance and policy manager.

Our fact checkers work with senior fact-checkers and assistant editors as part of a three-tier process while dealing with all claims. Any potentially contentious editorial decisions, complaints or necessary corrections involve the direct intervention of the editorial leads, who report to the global head of fact-checking. The global head of fact-checking is ultimately responsible for editorial policy and standards throughout the fact-checking team. A dedicated compliance and policy manager assists the team to ensure the fact-checking unit’s workflow and standards remain in sync with the best practices and policies of the global fact checking community.

3) Logically works in a number of areas, all related to reducing harms associated with mis-and disinformation, including:

1. Providing fact checking services for our B2B clients as well as for users of our app and web extension
   
2. Providing fact checking services in the public interest during high-risk events like conflicts and health emergencies
   
3. Developing technologies including enterprise and consumer software, AI and machine learning algorithms to assist fact checkers in their work, and to provide tools to individual users, media outlets, businesses, and governments to prevent and address harms caused by mis- and disinformation.
   
4. Publishing journalistic reports, educational resources and analysis in our areas of interest and expertise (including news and media literacy, fact checking, information disorders, and relevant technologies).
   

4) Over the coming year, our goals are:

• To build one of the largest and most diverse fact-checking operations in the world to tackle online mis/disinformation and associated harms at scale
  
• To continue developing a sustainable, responsible and ethical business model which allows for high-quality fact checks to be conducted at scale to serve the public interest and needs of media institutions and social media/tech businesses
  
• To produce high-quality fact-checks addressing non-English speaking regions in Europe, South Asia and the Middle East
  
• To scale our production of fact checks and informative video content
  
• To build dedicated verticals addressing climate change and health-related mis-and disinformation
  
• To address the demand for expert media literacy and fact-checking guidance and training via online and offline workshops
  
• To continue developing technologies and systems to support ourselves and the wider fact-checking community to tackle mis- and disinformation at scale
  
• To partner with non-partisan media, civic and governmental organisations to develop ways to use fact-checking to combat the effects of mis- and disinformation.
  
• To continue to work with, support and critically engage with the community of journalists, NGOs, businesses and civic groups who work in good faith to fight misinformation.
  

1) Logically was founded in July 2017 by CEO Lyric Jain "to develop technologies and products that reduce harms associated with mis- and disinformation."

2) At the time of this application, TheLogically Ltd employed over 187 staff across India, the USA, the UK, and the rest of Europe. 

Of these staff, 31 are dedicated members of the fact-checking unit, covering the UK, India and Sweden. 

Besides the fact-checking unit, Logically has personnel working in product development, technology research and development, marketing, administrative, and leadership roles.

Its fact-checking unit consists:

* six senior fact-checkers;

* 15 fact-checkers;

* four assistant editors responsible for copy-editing and editorial quality assurance;

* and, four regional leads responsible for "ensuring high editorial standards", as well as also managing day-to-day operations. 

The unit is headed by the global head of fact-checking, who is supported by a compliance and policy manager.

Logically's fact-checkers work with senior fact-checkers and assistant editors as part of a three-tier process, dealing with all claims. 

"Any potentially contentious editorial decisions, complaints, or necessary corrections involve the direct intervention of the editorial leads, who report to the global head of fact-checking. 

" The global head of fact-checking is ultimately responsible for editorial policy and standards throughout the fact-checking team. A dedicated compliance and policy manager assists the team to ensure the fact-checking unit’s workflow and standards remain in sync with the best practices and policies of the global fact-checking community."

3) Logically works in a number of areas, all related to reducing harms associated with mis-and disinformation. These include:

* Providing fact-checking services for its B2B clients, as well as for users of Logically's app for Apple (https://apple.co/3SFMnp1) and Android (https://bit.ly/3SXHMhy);

* Providing fact-checking services in the public interest during high-risk events like conflicts and health emergencies apps;

* Developing technologies, including enterprise and consumer software and AI and machine learning algorithms to assist fact-checkers in their work;

* Providing tools to individual users, media outlets, businesses, and governments to prevent and address harms caused by mis- and disinformation;

* Publishing journalistic reports, educational resources, and analysis in Logically's areas of interest and expertise, including news and media literacy, fact-checking, information disorders, and relevant technologies. (See: https://bit.ly/3EpJZhP ).

4) Logically's says its goals in the year ahead are:

* "To build one of the largest and most diverse fact-checking operations in the world to tackle online mis/disinformation and associated harms at scale";

* "To continue developing a sustainable, responsible and ethical business model, which allows for high-quality fact-checks to be conducted at scale to serve the public interest and needs of media institutions and social media/tech businesses";

* "To produce high-quality fact-checks addressing non-English speaking regions in Europe, South Asia and the Middle East";

* "To scale production of fact-checks and informative video content";

* "To build dedicated verticals addressing climate change and health-related mis-and disinformation";

* "To address the demand for expert media literacy and fact-checking guidance and training via online and offline workshop";

* "To continue developing technologies and systems to support ourselves and the wider fact-checking community to tackle mis- and disinformation at scale";

* "To partner with non-partisan media, civic and governmental organisations to develop ways to use fact-checking to combat the effects of mis- and disinformation";

* "To continue to work with, [and] support, and critically engage with the community of journalists, NGOs, businesses and civic groups who work in good faith to fight misinformation".

Logically handles a very large volume of fact checks. The claims we fact check are selected by us through our in-house fact checking tool, or they are submitted to us by users of the Logically app. The claims are based on topics of societal relevance or which require urgent attention.

We have attached a list of 53 fact checks completed between August 2021-August 2022, which we have compiled as a broad representation of the scope of topics that we cover. All claims which fall within our scope and are otherwise suitable to be checked (please see section 2.2 for details on our criteria for claim validity) are investigated by our fact-checkers, and a verdict is published on our website and/or shared with the user who submitted the claim. This year, we verified a substantial number of claims regarding Russia’s war in Ukraine. We have also continued to see misleading and false narratives relating to COVID-19 and vaccines.

The selection of topics across our submission shows that the vast majority of both the claims we check and the claims we publish fall under the IFCN's definition of being in the public interest.

We have also attached a list of all the claims we have published on our website between August 2021 and August 2022 to demonstrate that we have complied with the above-stated requirement. 

Logically publishes a large volume of fact-checks that far exceeds the one fact-check-a-week criteria for this section. In fact, it often publishes multiple fact-checks on a wide variety of subjects and issues in a single day. These range from politics to Covid-19; general health issues and diseases, including Monkey Pox; conflict in Afghanistan and Ukraine, and much more. It has also fact-checked claims in multiple countries, including India, Pakistan, the UK, India, Ukraine, Afghanistan, and South Africa. The range and diversity of fact-checks and countries are amongst the widest I have seen as an IFCN assessor.

Logically included a spreadsheet of 53 fact-checks with its application (see attached), done between August 2021 and August, which illustrates the variety of topics, and the different countries they fact-checked during that period.

We have attached a complete list of all our published fact checks between 01 June 2022 and 31 August 2022, which can also be found at https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library. 

A random assessment of fact-checks published over the past three months reveals that Logically has far exceeded the required criteria. Logically also submitted an extensive list of fact-checks done between June 1 and August 31, 2022, as proof that it meets the necessary criteria. (See attached).

A library of all Logically's fact-checks can be found here: https://bit.ly/3SNHWbM

Logically has no commercial, institutional or financial relationships with any politician or political party and also prohibits its employees from engaging with political parties.

Logically has worked and continues to work with several non-partisan governmental organisations. Below is a list of some of the recent work we have done for governmental and government-adjacent organisations across the territories we operate in.

Logically currently supports the Oregon Secretary of State's Office in identifying, analyzing, and addressing misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation (MDM) narratives related to the US 2022 midterm elections.

Logically also currently supports the Colorado Secretary of State's Office in identifying, analyzing, and addressing MDM narratives related to COVID-19 vaccines for children. In addition, Logically currently supports the Colorado Secretary of State's Office in identifying threats to election officials or property.

Since January 2021, we have been engaged by the UK Department of Culture, Media and Sport to provide social media monitoring of disinformation trends. This contract was awarded following an accelerated open tender and has since been renewed.

Earlier, Logically had run pilot programs with local police forces in India to improve their capabilities in using open source intelligence and social media monitoring to detect mis/disinformation that could potentially have an on-ground impact (URL: https://www.logically.ai/press/logicallys-maharashtra-election-war-room).

Logically has and will continue to apply for funding and grants offered by groups, including responsible and non-partisan state, governmental and supranational bodies, to participate in relevant schemes, competitions and programs which may be supported by non-partisan governmental actors, and to offer its services (either on a commercial or a pro bono basis) to responsible and non-partisan state and governmental bodies.

All of our work is conducted in accordance with our client ethics policy. (See: https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/transparency)

1.6 If you confirmed the organization receives funding from local or foreign state or political sources, provide a link to where on your website you set out how you ensure the editorial independence of your work.

We publish details of the way that Logically's fact checking unit is organised in relation to the rest of the company on our Transparency page (https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/transparency). We have outlined our policy on editorial independence, stating that it cannot be compromised by commercial interests or influenced by our funders, on the FAQ page (https://www.logically.ai/fact-check) on our website. 

Logically says that it does not have any commercial, institutional or financial relationships with any politician or political party. It also prohibits its employees from engaging with political parties. (See "Policy on non-partisanship https://bit.ly/3VauIr2 and "Transparency page https://bit.ly/3AvaMUP) 

"Logically has worked and continues to work with several non-partisan governmental organisations." (See "When assessing any potential client opportunity, we apply the following standards" https://bit.ly/3AvaMUP 

It also supplied a list with its application of some recent work Logically has done for governmental and government-adjacent organisations across the territories in which it operates. This work involves identifying, analysing, and addressing misinformation, disinformation and malinformation (MDM) (When assessing any potential client opportunity, we apply the following standards:

This includes:

* Currently supporting the Oregon Secretary of State's Office to identify, analyse and address MDM narratives related to the US 2022 midterm elections.

* Currently supporting the Colorado Secretary of State's Office with regard to MAD issues related to COVID-19 vaccines for children. In addition, Logically says it currently supports the Colorado Secretary of State's Office in identifying threats to election officials or property.

* Since January 2021, Logically has been engaged by the UK Department of Culture, Media and Sport to provide social media monitoring of disinformation trends. This contract was awarded following an accelerated open tender and has since been renewed.

Earlier, Logically ran pilot programmes with local police forces in India to improve their capabilities in using open source intelligence and social media monitoring to detect mis- and disinformation that could potentially have an on-ground impact. See: https://bit.ly/3fPBe6q 

"Logically has, and will continue, to apply for funding and grants offered by groups, including responsible and non-partisan state, governmental and supranational bodies, to participate in relevant schemes, competitions, and programs which may be supported by non-partisan governmental actors, and to offer its services (either on a commercial or a pro bono basis) to responsible and non-partisan state and governmental bodies," it says in its application.,

All of this work is conducted in accordance with Logially's client ethics policy, - see https://bit.ly/3AvaMUP) - where it is clearly stated:

"When assessing any potential client opportunity, we apply the following standards:

We won’t enter into any contract which would be incompatible with the principles of enhancing civic discourse, protecting democratic debate and process, and providing access to trustworthy information.

We won’t enter into any contract where there's a reasonable likelihood the client would use the information that we find to cause undue harm to any person or group or threaten to undermine the human rights of any person or group.

We will not engage in any partnership which would undermine our commitment to political non-partisanship.

We will ensure that all commercial contracts include a specific, limited and targeted scope within which our products and services are licensed for use, agreed between Logically and the client. Any violation of those terms will result in termination of service.

A robust ethics review process underpins this approach to ensure that any new contract is aligned with these standards."

We publish details of the way that Logically's fact checking unit is organised in relation to the rest of the company on our Transparency page (https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/transparency). We have outlined our policy on editorial independence, stating that it cannot be compromised by commercial interests or influenced by our funders, on the FAQ page (https://www.logically.ai/fact-check) on our website. 

Logically's ethics and related policies are clearly spelled out on its "Transparency" page: https://bit.ly/3AvaMUP

Artificial Intelligence software plays a key role in Logically's fact-checking process. See "Responsibility, Explainability and Ethics in AI" here: https://bit.ly/3SYJMpC

This statement is on the same page.

"Responsible AI is about creating and adhering to a set of principles to ensure AI is being used ethically. This area of AI is evolving, and it’s clear that without taking steps towards clarity of purpose, ethical commitment with full buy-in from all stakeholders, and accountability, the technology has the potential to cause real harm.

To guard against this at Logically, we strive to continuously improve the transparency standards behind our AI models. Part of this is turning black box models into more explainable services that actually offer insights, such as: 'Why is this piece of information classified as misleading? Why is this particular article flagged as containing toxicity.' 

We've worked internally to validate different approaches to explainable AI, and how that can be implemented on top of the deep learning models that we've developed."

The way Logically is set up makes it extremely difficult for systematic biases to emerge in our fact checks. Our fact checking unit is also widely distributed, with a large team of diverse backgrounds and political persuasions. As such, it would be extremely difficult for us to intentionally or negligently unduly focus our fact checks on any one side, or to systematically favour one side or another in our reasoning or judgements.

Below is a list of ten fact checks which we believe illustrate our non-partisanship. We have summarised the judgement in each case, who the target of the claim was, and whether our judgement favoured them or not. We also provide a short statement concerning the evidence brought to bear in each case.

1. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/a11b7d71

A viral video on social media purported to show that Georgian Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene was rejected from a reality show audition, and we rated it as false.

Upon further research, we found that the clip being circulated was an excerpt from a 2002 American Idol episode. While the subject of the video had been said to resemble Greene, we found several factors undermine the proposition that they are the same person. The woman in the video performed under the moniker Stefanie Sugarman, and public records correspond with the details given by the contestant on the show. Further, we noted that Greene would have been ineligible for the first season of American Idol due to her being around 27 years old at the time of the clip, as the show prohibits participation from contestants older than 24 years of age. Since we found reliable evidence directly contradicting the claim, we rated it as false.

2. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/507f9744

An image of a leaflet was used to claim that UK schools are encouraging children to make friends with paedophiles, and we rated it false.

An image of a leaflet was published on social media, and numerous tweets with tens of thousands of likes claimed that U.K. public schools were distributing it to kids, and encouraging them to be friends with paedophiles. There are no labels nor logos on the pamphlet, and it contains several grammatical errors and spelling mistakes, making it unlikely this was printed or distributed at scale by an official government or educational agency. Reverse image searches revealed that the earliest instance of the photo came from the Russian social media site VKontakte. There are no other images of the pamphlet other than the initial set posted on VK. We checked what materials UK public schools actually distribute to children to teach them about bodily consent, and found that the pamphlet did not match up to them. Since we did not find any evidence that this viral leaflet was ever produced or distributed in the U.K. or anywhere else, we rated the claim as false.

3. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/69ff3bc5

This check rates a claim about U.S. funded biolabs in Ukraine, which we rated misleading.

After Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, we processed a large number of claims in the wake of Russian disinformation spreading rapidly online. This claim was directly related to Putin and his allies, who had claimed that US biolabs all over Ukraine was one of the reasons for the invasion. In this instance, we looked at a fact sheet from the U.S. Department of Defense, which did not deny that the U.S. had provided funding for biological research in Ukraine. From this fact sheet, we were able to ascertain that the purpose of these laboratories - set up to research and respond to deadly diseases, as a member country of the WHO - was not nefarious, as claimed by Putin and other disinformation agents. We also noted that other credible fact checkers had reached the same conclusion, so we incorporated their expertise as part of the fact checking community as sources of our fact check. We eventually rated the claim as misleading because it was clear the meaning of ‘biolabs’ had been twisted and misinterpreted, when really it meant that these were institutions researching deadly diseases, that exist in countries worldwide.

4. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/d322ca2d

This check rates a claim about refugees and supposed illegal immigrants receiving a yearly income of £29,900 from the UK government, which we rated as false.

Facebook posts compared the UK state pension to that of Germany’s to attempt to say that refugees and illegal immigrants can claim £29,900 per year from the State. We looked at the facts about pensions from the UK government website, which were accurate as per the post. We also looked at the German data, which proved the post to be inaccurate, as German state pensions have no statutory minimum or maximum. Following this, we turned to data on refugees and illegal immigrants themselves, explaining that the terms cannot be conflated as illegal immigrants are not entitled to any payments or benefits in the UK. Again, we used UK government website data to provide accurate information on the legal amounts refugees are entitled to, as well as including background information on the 1951 Refugee Convention and legal routes into the UK. This helped to explain to readers the differences between illegal immigrants and refugees, and why the post was inaccurate. Since the figure of £29,900 could not be verified, and the amount supposedly earned by refugees, was incorrect, we rated this claim as false.

5. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/1191d0b5

This claim was about a UK police criminal investigation into deaths from COVID vaccination, and we rated it false.

A number of posts on social media were sharing a supposed crime reference number for an “investigation into COVID vaccines.” Users claimed that the UK Metropolitan police (“Met”) had opened a criminal investigation into the supposed deaths caused by the COVID vaccines. These posts were sometimes attached to videos where it was indicated users were calling the police to confirm that this was a real investigation. In the videos, the supposed staffer at the Met said there was an open investigation, and that people could call in and add their “evidence” by following a QR code. However, upon research, we found that in the UK, crime reference numbers are not proof that a criminal investigation has been opened, just that a crime has been reported. We also found that the images of the letters attached to these posts of the “investigation” did not contain an official government logo, as would be expected in a real investigation. As there was no other publically available information, Logically contacted the Met, and the Met confirmed that they had not launched any such criminal investigation. Since we found no evidence of an active criminal investigation into deaths caused by COVID-19 vaccines, which are proven to be safe and effective, we rated the claim as false.

6. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/a57d5912

This claim states four Hindu-owned shops were set on fire in Bangladesh on August 22, 2022, which we rated as ‘false’.

Posts on social media with images of burnt-down shops in Bangladesh were circulating with a false communal narrative. The posts claim that the shops were specifically targeted amid rising communal violence between Hindus and Muslims in the country. However, using Google’s reverse image search with relevant keywords, we found three reliable local news outlets and an IFCN-certified Bangladeshi fact checking organization that had reported that the cause of the incident was an electrical short circuit. Two of the aforementioned outlets had quoted a senior station officer who confirmed a short circuit led to the fire and who also denied the involvement of any individuals in the incident. Since we found reliable evidence contradicting the claims made in the social media posts, we rated the claim as false.

7. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/b2a7aad5

This claim states that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a speech instigating violence against upper caste people and is rated as ‘false’.

Using keyword search and keyframes, we found the video was taken from a 2016 speech made by Modi on the architect behind India’s constitution, Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s life as a Dalit. After watching the relevant portions of the speech, we found the video being shared on social media was edited to indicate that Modi said "for a man who faced such discrimination and injustice, if given the opportunity, would someone not get even?". We found that the video was, in fact, clipped to exclude the full context of what Modi said soon after, wherein he added, “human beings would act selfishly, but Ambedkar was beyond such things. Even when he had power and influence, his words and actions never displayed any bitterness." We found the Indian Prime Minister didn't try to justify caste-violence or provoke lower caste people against upper caste people and rated it as false.

8. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/a1067afd

This claim stated that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had insulted the Indian national flag by wiping sweat off his face with it. We rated this claim as ‘misleading’.

Amid the Indian government’s campaign pushing for the display of the Indian national flag outside every home on the country’s independence day, a Facebook user posted a montage of two images of Modi wiping his face with a tricolored piece of cloth. The user claimed that Modi had disrespected the “flag” by using it to wipe the sweat off his face. The photos were from a 2015 event, and on going through several reports and images from the said event, we found no evidence that the cloth used had the National Emblem, without which the Indian flag is incomplete. The stole Modi used most likely had the same colors as the flag, but did not violate The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. Since we did not find any credible evidence supporting the claim, we rated it as misleading.

9. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/e7517c75

The claim stated that the Indian National Congress would adopt a policy to give one party ticket to each family barring the Gandhi family. We marked this claim as partly true.

A post on Twitter claimed that the Indian National Congress’s working committee approved the “one-family-one-ticket” proposal, with a clause excluding the Gandhi family. On going through the press briefing and reading the party brief, we found that the Gandhi family was not excluded from the policy. Since the policy has been approved, but no clause excluding the Gandhi family from this was found, we rated this claim as misleading.

10. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/55e824a3

An article in Newsweek claimed that half of Joe Biden’s followers on Twitter were fake accounts, and we rated the claim as misleading.

The initial article in Newsweek reported that half of President Joe Biden’s Twitter followers were bots or spam accounts, citing an analysis from SparkToro, a social media analytics company. However, the journalist had run the analysis on the @POTUS account rather than the @JoeBiden account and conflated the two. Secondly, the journalist had used SparkToro’s free tool, which was affected by two kinds of recency bias in its calculations, as explained by the co-founder of SparkToro, Rand Fishkin, on Twitter. While a more thorough analysis using different tools revealed that the @JoeBiden account had approximately 43% fake followers, which is close to half, an analysis of the @POTUS handle revealed only about 4% fake followers. The claim itself, however, was being used to suggest that Joe Biden as president, was responsible for these followers, which he is not. Based on this confusion between the accounts, the high percentage of fake followers on the @JoeBiden account, and the use of the claim to suggest Biden was responsible, we rated the claim as misleading, as the claim in the initial article failed to give a full picture. 

In its application, Logically says that the way it is set up "makes it extremely difficult for systematic biases to emerge in our fact-checks. 

"Our fact-checking unit is also widely distributed, with a large team of diverse backgrounds and political persuasions. As such, it would be extremely difficult for us to intentionally, or negligently, unduly focus our fact checks on any one side, or to systematically favour one side or another in our reasoning or judgments."

Logically supplied 10 examples of fact-checks, which I am satisfied illustrate its non-partisanship.

1. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/a11b7d71

A viral video on social media that purported to show that US Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene was rejected from a reality show audition, was rated "false."

2. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/507f9744

An image of a leaflet claiming that UK schools were encouraging children to make friends with pedophiles, was rated "false."

3. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/69ff3bc5

A claim about U.S.-funded biolabs in Ukraine was rated "misleading."

4. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/d322ca2d

The claim that refugees and supposed illegal immigrants received a yearly income of £29,900 from the UK government, was rated "false."

5. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/1191d0b5

A claim that UK police conducted a criminal investigation into deaths from COVID vaccination was rated "false."

6. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/a57d5912

A claim that four Hindu-owned shops were set on fire in Bangladesh on August 22, 2022, was rated "false".

7. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/b2a7aad5

The claim that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a speech instigating violence against upper caste people was rated "false."

8. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/a1067afd

Another claim alleging that Prime Minister Modi had insulted the Indian national flag by wiping sweat off his face with it was rated as "misleading."

9. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/e7517c75

The claim that the Indian National Congress would adopt a "one family, one ticket" policy included a clause barring the Gandhi family was rated as "partly true."

10. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/55e824a3

A claim in a Newsweek article that half of Joe Biden’s followers on Twitter were fake accounts was rated as "misleading."

We publish information on how we select which claims to check and publish in the FAQ section (https://www.logically.ai/fact-check) on our website. We ensure that the fact checks that we display as highlights, and in our fact check library, meet appropriate standards of interest and fairness, as described in the information published on our website.

Logically uses powerful AI algorithms to discover potential fact-checks. 

On the site, it states:

"Logically Intelligence ingests millions of data sources from social platforms and websites, including public channels on closed networks such as Telegram.

"It then applies advanced natural language processing and knowledge engineering techniques to identify and disambiguate entities, topics and concepts.

"Logically Intelligence is the result of over 600,000 hours of R&D developing AI to understand the content and online discourse that has been battle hardened in field deployments across three continents."

Its human, OSINT team also works on "in-depth investigations to [help] identify targeted groups, bad actors and the origins and spread of harmful activity, and [to] respond effectively.

Users can also submit claims for fact-checking via Logically's app, which is available for Android and Apple devices.

See https://bit.ly/3CFuQYa

After doing a random assessment of fact-checks Logically has done in the previous year, I am satisfied that it does not unduly concentrate its fact-checking on any one side, and considers the reach and importance of claims it selects to check.

Having done a random assessment of Logically's fact-checks published over the previous year, I am satisfied that it meets the necessary criteria for compliancy.

Our non-partisanship policy, which applies to all employees in the fact checking unit, is published in the FAQ section of our fact-checking landing page (https://www.logically.ai/fact-check), with further explanation on our Transparency page (https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/transparency)

Our client ethics policy found on our transparency page (https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/transparency), also requires any staff to disclose any potential conflicts of interest in working on any project, and also to determine in advance of any project whether that project might undermine Logically's reputation for non-partisanship. No project can pass our internal ethics review until reviewers unanimously agree that there is no conflict of interest, nor that it might undermine our commitment to non-partisanship.

All staff members at Logically are also obliged not to conduct any activity which might unduly damage Logically's reputation, which includes damaging our reputation for non-partisanship. 

Logically client ethics policy is clearly spelled out on the "Transparency page: https://bit.ly/3AvaMUP

Recommendation: 

Add the following to the page where Logically explains its client ethics policy to explain how it deals with potential conflicts of interest involving its staff.

"Logically requires our fact-checking staff to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in working on any project, and also to determine in advance whether working on a project might undermine our reputation for non-partisanship. 

No project can pass our internal ethics review until reviewers unanimously agree that there is no conflict of interest that might undermine our commitment to non-partisanship.

All staff members at Logically are also obliged not to conduct any activity which might unduly damage Logically's reputation, which includes damaging our reputation for non-partisanship.

"Our staff agrees to abstain from standing for any political office, publicly supporting any politician or party, or expressing political opinions in public."

As an optional additional statement: I also suggest stating words to the effect of: "All our fact-checking staff are required to complete a declaration of personal interests before they start work at Logically." (If such a declaration is not in place, I would suggest that Logically considers implementing such a declaration for all its fact-checking staff.)

Logically client ethics policy is clearly spelled out on the "Transparency page: https://bit.ly/3AvaMUP

Recommendation: 

Add the following to the page where Logically explains its client ethics policy to explain how it deals with potential conflicts of interest involving its staff.

"Logically requires our fact-checking staff to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in working on any project, and also to determine in advance whether working on a project might undermine our reputation for non-partisanship. 

No project can pass our internal ethics review until reviewers unanimously agree that there is no conflict of interest that might undermine our commitment to non-partisanship.

All staff members at Logically are also obliged not to conduct any activity which might unduly damage Logically's reputation, which includes damaging our reputation for non-partisanship.

"Our staff agrees to abstain from standing for any political office, publicly supporting any politician or party, or expressing political opinions in public."

As an optional additional statement: I also suggest stating words to the effect of: "All our fact-checking staff are required to complete a declaration of personal interests before they start work at Logically." (If such a declaration is not in place, I would suggest that Logically considers implementing such a declaration for all its fact-checking staff.)

I am satisfied that Logically identifies the source of all significant evidence used in their fact checks. They provide links at the end of all fact-checks that either refute or support the fact-check. They also provide links to "neutral" contextual stories or research that have useful background information on the issue being fact-checked. In this way, users can replicate the process from which conclusions were reached, as well as to fact-check the fact-checkers.

Logically policy on sources is outlined in the FAQs. See "How do we choose sources?" https://bit.ly/3VauIr2 

After conducting a random assessment of Logically's fact-checks, I am satisfied that primary sources are used as far as possible. Links are also provided to all online sources used in a fact-check. Logically policy on sources is outlined in the FAQs. See "How do we choose sources?" https://bit.ly/3VauIr2

After a random review of fact-checks over the past year, I am satisfied that Logically uses multiple sources wherever possible for its fact-checks.

I am satisfied that Logically uses sources that both confirm its findings, as well as any that might contradict them. It also supplies "neutral" sources that help give context to the issue or subject being fact-checked.

Logically Fact Checking is the fact checking unit of TheLogically Ltd. For proof of organizational status, see section 4.2.

Logically Fact-Checking is the fact-checking unit of TheLogically Ltd.

Proof of registration with Companies House in the UK attached.                                                                                                           

We publish the following statement on our website on our Transparency page (www.logically.ai/factchecks/transparency )

“TheLogically (Trading as Logically) is a UK registered company - No. 10850644. Check our records at Companies House here.”

URL: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10850644

“In March 2022, Logically announced the completion of a $24 million funding round led by growth investor Vitruvian Partners.
The round also included investment from the Amazon Alexa Fund and existing seed investors XTX Ventures, the venture capital affiliate of XTC Markets, a leading global algorithmic trading firm, and the Northern Powerhouse Investment Fund (NPIF - Mercia Equity Finance), managed by Mercia Asset Management PLC.
Logically initially secured funding from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) through an investment grant which supports student-founded businesses.
Logically CEO and Founder Lyric Jain has also invested in the company using personal savings, as has Lyric's family businesses.”

Logically Fact-Checking is the fact-checking unit of TheLogically Ltd. The following appears on the "Transparency" page of Logially's site:

"TheLogically (Trading as Logically) is a UK-registered company - No. 10850644. Check our records at Companies House here.” (The word "here" is hyperlinked to TheLogically Ltd's Companies House registration: https://bit.ly/3lBy0UQ

Details of Logically investors (see: Current investors): https://bit.ly/3AvaMUP

In addition, Logically announced the completion of a $24 million funding round led by growth investor Vitruvian Partners, in March 2022.

The round included investment from the Amazon Alexa Fund and existing seed investors XTX Ventures, the venture capital affiliate of XTC Markets, a leading global algorithmic trading firm. Another investor was the Northern Powerhouse Investment Fund (NPIF - Mercia Equity Finance), managed by Mercia Asset Management PLC. 

Logically initially secured funding from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), through an investment grant which supports student-founded businesses.

Logically CEO and Founder Lyric Jain has also invested in the company using personal savings, as has Lyric's family businesses.

Our organisational structure is set out on our 'Transparency' page (https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/transparency).

The FAQ section (https://www.logically.ai/fact-check) on our website has our statement on our editorial independence (please see 2.5 for more on this), an introduction to our fact checking unit and an explanation of our processes.

On this page, we make it clear that editorial control is ultimately exercised by the global head of fact checking.

The fact-checking team consists of 15 fact-checkers and six senior fact-checkers, four assistant editors responsible for copy-editing and editorial quality assurance, and four regional leads responsible for ensuring high editorial standards and managing the day-to-day operations of the fact-checking team.

Our fact-checkers work with supervisors (senior fact-checkers) and assistant editors in the three-tier process while dealing with all claims and fact checks. Any potentially contentious editorial decisions, complaints or necessary corrections involve the direct intervention of the editorial and operations leads, who also report to the global head of fact-checking. The global head of fact-checking is ultimately responsible for editorial policy and standards throughout the fact-checking team. A dedicated compliance and policy manager assists the head of the team in ensuring the fact-checking team's workflow and standards remain in sync with the best practices and policies of the global fact-checking community.

On its FAQ page, Logically publishes the following statement:

"What is our policy on editorial independence?"

"Our funders and clients have no control over our fact-checking workflow, nor can they offer any input in our editorial decision-making. Senior members of the fact-checking unit (regional operations and editorial leads) are jointly responsible for editorial rigor, quality, and consistency. The global head of fact-checking is ultimately responsible for editorial policy and standards throughout the global fact-checking team." (See https://bit.ly/3VauIr2) 

Recommendation:

Consider adding the following to follow on from "... the global fact-checking team."

"When dealing with claims and fact-checks, our fact-checkers work under the supervision of senior fact-checkers and assistant editors in a three-tier process,  

Any potentially contentious editorial decisions, complaints, or necessary corrections involve the direct intervention of the editorial and operations leads, who also report to the global head of fact-checking. 

A dedicated compliance and policy manager assists the head of the team in ensuring the fact-checking team's workflow and standards remain in sync with the best practices and policies of the global fact-checking community."

On its FAQ page, Logically publishes the following statement:

"What is our policy on editorial independence?"

"Our funders and clients have no control over our fact-checking workflow, nor can they offer any input in our editorial decision-making. Senior members of the fact-checking unit (regional operations and editorial leads) are jointly responsible for editorial rigor, quality, and consistency. The global head of fact-checking is ultimately responsible for editorial policy and standards throughout the global fact-checking team." (See https://bit.ly/3VauIr2) 

Recommendation:

Consider adding the following to follow on from "... the global fact-checking team."

"When dealing with claims and fact-checks, our fact-checkers work under the supervision of senior fact-checkers and assistant editors in a three-tier process,  

Any potentially contentious editorial decisions, complaints, or necessary corrections involve the direct intervention of the editorial and operations leads, who also report to the global head of fact-checking. 

A dedicated compliance and policy manager assists the head of the team in ensuring the fact-checking team's workflow and standards remain in sync with the best practices and policies of the global fact-checking community."

We publish the names, photographs, and professional biographies of everybody who works in our fact checking unit, together with information about the senior leadership of the company on the ‘Meet the Team’ page (https://www.logically.ai/team) on our website.

Some of our fact checkers refer to themselves using only their first names and initials. We would like to make clear that this is not an attempt at pseudonymisation, but rather a standard naming convention in some parts of Southern India, where some of our fact checkers are based.

Logically publishes the names, photographs, and professional biographies of all members of its fact-checking team, as well as the senior leadership of the company, on its ‘Meet the Team’ page. See https://bit.ly/3MiWe1p 

Logically points out in its application that some of its fact-checkers are referred to by only their first names and initials. "We would like to make clear that this is not an attempt at pseudonymisation, but rather a standard naming convention in some parts of Southern India, where some of our fact-checkers are based.

There are calls to action on each of our published fact checks, encouraging users to contact our editorial team with comments, questions, and complaints. This form encourages users to submit feedback and correction requests for a specific claim, raise queries on another claim, and ask us to fact check a fresh claim and provides options to ensure that their message is appropriately directed.

There is also prominent functionality in the Logically app to submit comments and correction requests to any of our fact checks.

A call to action is published below every fact-check (see attached).

Users are encouraged to submit feedback and correction requests for a specific claim, raise queries on another claim, or request a new fact-check.

There is also prominent functionality in the Logically app to submit comments, corrections, or fact-check requests.

Details concerning our methodology for selecting, researching, writing and publishing fact checks can be found in the FAQ section (https://www.logically.ai/fact-check) on our website. 

Details of how Logically selects, researches, writes and publishes fact-checks are displayed on its FAQ page. See: https://bit.ly/3VauIr2 

See also: "How do we conduct fact checks?" https://bit.ly/3VauIr2 

Having done a random assessment of fact-checks over the past 12 months, I am satisfied that Logically selects claims to check based primarily on the reach and importance of these claims, and where possible explains the reason for choosing the claim to check. See: "How does Logically decide what to fact check?" https://bit.ly/3VauIr2 

I am satisfied that Logically sets out relevant evidence that supports a claim, as well as relevant evidence that could undermine it.

I am satisfied that Logically assesses the evidence when doing a fact-check using the same standards and methodology, irrespective of who made the claim.

While understanding that it is not always possible, nor necessary, that Logically - if neccessary - contacts the person who made a claim that is being fact-checked, to seek supporting evidence.

We encourage user submission of claims in the submission form under each of our published fact checks. Apart from this, we also encourage users to send claims in our app and on our social media channels. We are also piloting a WhatsApp tipline in India where users can submit claims for us to fact check.

We set out the process by which our claims are checked, and the circumstances in which we may reject a submitted claim, in the FAQ section (https://www.logically.ai/fact-check) on our website. 

Logically says in its application: "We encourage user submission of claims in the submission form under each of our published fact checks. Apart from this, we also encourage users to send claims in our app and on our social media channels. We are also piloting a WhatsApp tipline in India where users can submit claims for us to fact-check.

The process by which claims are checked, as well as why a claim may be rejected for fact-checking, is explained on the FAQ page. See: https://bit.ly/3VauIr2

Our corrections policy is published at www.logically.ai/fact-check under the FAQ section on our website. 

See "Corrections" in the FAQs: https://bit.ly/3VauIr2 

I am satisfied that Logicallyt's corrections policy meets the necessary criteria for compliance. See: https://bit.ly/3VauIr2 

The policy states:

"Fact checks may need to be revised for several reasons, including the emergence of new information, the discovery of new evidence, or correcting typographical errors. If you believe we have made an error in any aspect of one of our fact checks, contact us through the calls to action on each of our published fact checks.

Each fact check comes with a unique tracking code, allowing our editorial team to quickly trace any fact check that may be the subject of an update, complaint, or correction.

Fact checks edited with substantive corrections will be marked with a 'correction' label on the sharable image.

Fact checks edited with non-substantive corrections (to fix spelling, grammatical or other mistakes that do not contribute to the substance of the claim or judgment) will be marked as 'updated.'

Complaints will be assessed by senior members of the fact-checking unit and promptly responded to, with reasons given for our decision to either correct a fact check or leave it as it stands.

If you are not satisfied with our response, you will be able to issue a further complaint to our senior editorial members of the fact-checking unit, who will take any necessary steps to satisfactorily address the issue, up to and including appointing an independent advisor to investigate the claim.

Users who have received or tracked a fact check which is the subject of an update or a correction will be notified.

Journalistic Corrections and Right of Reply

If you notice something published in our journalistic, research or educational output which you believe to be inaccurate, misleading, or unfair, please submit a correction request through the form at the end of the page. Any complaints will be raised to our editorial leads and responded to within 48 hours. Any complaint found to have substantive merit will be publicly corrected, and the correction is given equal prominence to the article in question. We offer anybody who was the subject of criticism in our reporting the right to reply, provided a prima facie case can be made that our criticisms can be fairly addressed. Reasons for any refusal to grant a right to reply will be published on our website."

Over the previous 12 months, we received 3677 requests for corrections. Of these, only a minority were reasonable requests (with the rest falling under the categories of general grievances, random strings of words, or irrelevant abuse).

We also internally review our fact check library, and make corrections and/or updates where necessary.

Of the complaints we received between August 2021 and August 2022, 16 resulted in substantive corrections being published. We provided updates on a further 18 where new evidence came to light that affected older fact checks.

Below are two examples of external correction requests we have received, together with brief statements describing how they were addressed.

1. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/ac93b73e

Initial claim: Pfizer made a $24.1 billion profit in the third quarter of 2021.

Updated claim: Thanks to its COVID-19 vaccine, Pfizer made a $24.1 billion profit in the third quarter of 2021.

Initial Judgment: False

Updated judgment: Misleading

A social media post claimed that Pfizer had made $24.1 billion in profit by selling Comirnaty, the COVID-19 vaccine. We looked at Pfizer’s third-quarter financial report and looked at the news coverage of that report. According to that report, while they had made $24.1 billion in revenue overall that quarter, only $14.7 billion was due to vaccine sales, with $13 billion due to COVID-19 vaccine sales. We wrote the claim as “Pfizer made 24.1 billion profit in the third quarter of 2021.” We rated the claim ‘false’ based on that information.

We received several complaints via our website, telling us that the way we’d written the claim was factually untrue, as it inaccurately misrepresented Pfizer’s actual financial report . One complaint was the following:

You agree they made a 24 billion dollar profit. We don’t disagree that 14 billion was on COVID. This is not false. And CNN is absolutely not a reliable source. The least respected, most distrustful news source in the USA.

This complaint showed us that we had not written the claim properly. Pfizer made $24.1 billion overall, and although that was being used to spread the false claim that Pfizer had made $24.1 billion in profit from selling vaccines alone, the way we’d written and adjudicated the claim indicated that we had said that they had not in fact earned $24.1 billion. This is incorrect. We had also mistakenly conflated “profit” and “revenue” in the explanation, which made the check unclear. We updated the judgment to “misleading” based on this and rewrote the fact check’s claim so that it clarified that the original post was implying that all of the profits were due to vaccine sales. We added a corrections note to explain what additions and changes we had made:

CORRECTION 20/12/2021: We have altered this post to clarify the original claim that Pfizer's profit increase was due to sales of the COVID-19 vaccine.

We sent a message to the complainants, telling them that we had updated the verdict and the text of the fact check to be more accurate. We received no further correspondence from this user.

2.https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/e8507b5b

Claim: A leaked letter from the World Economic Forum confirms that ‘The Great Reset’ is real

Initial Judgment: False

Updated Judgment: Misleading

This fact check was based on a letter sent from the World Economic Forum to the Dutch Government, inviting representatives to come and discuss the WEF’s proposals for rebooting the world’s economies in the wake of the pandemic. The WEF calls these policy proposals the “Great Reset”. The letters to the Dutch government had been shared in numerous places online alongside claims that they were secret plans for a global takeover by a single government, and that these supposed plans had been leaked. When we investigated, we found that the plans were public, not leaked. We included links to the original document.

The Great Reset conspiracy theory is a common false narrative tying together many conspiratorial claims, often in an antisemitic direction, and we included information about what that conspiracy theory is and how it arose.

We received this complaint a few days after the check was published, via our website complaint form:

The fact check states: « A recent claim states that an official document sent from the WEF to Pepijn van Houwelingen, a Dutch Minister, mentioned the word "The Great Reset." »

Pepijn van Houwelingen is not a Minister, but a Member of Parliament. The WEF documents were not addressed to him, but obtained by him from the Dutch government through parliamentary questions. He subsequently shared them on his Twitter page.

The complaint drew our attention to the poor phrasing of the claim. The Great Reset is indeed a real plan, but it’s not secret, and many of the conspiratorial claims attributed to it – such as microchipping or depopulating the planet – are false. The way we had written and phrased the fact check could imply that the Great Reset initiative itself wasn’t real.

We also had incorrectly labelled van Houwelingen, and incorrectly described how the documents were obtained and publically shared. We posted the following correction:

CORRECTION 1/2/2022: We changed the claim edit from “A leaked letter from the World Economic Forum confirms that ‘The Great Reset’ is real” to “A government document confirms ‘The Great Reset’ conspiracy theory is real.” We also changed the judgment from “false” to “misleading.” This was to better reflect the Facebook post it was in response to. We accept that there is a document in which the term “the Great Reset” is used. However, in the document, the term is not used in a conspiratorial context. We also edited the conclusion to say that Pepijn van Houwelingen is a member of parliament and not a minister.

We sent a message to the user explaining the corrections and thanked him for his email. We received no further correspondence from this user. 

Logically states in its application that it received 3,677 requests for corrections over the previous 12 months.

It says: "Of these, only a minority were reasonable requests (with the rest falling under the categories of general grievances, random strings of words, or irrelevant abuse). We also internally review our fact-check library, and make corrections and/or updates where necessary.

Of the complaints we received between August 2021 and August 2022, Logically says that 16 resulted in substantive corrections being published. It also provided updates on a further 18, where new evidence came to light that affected fact checks.

Two examples of corrections, with brief statements describing how they were addressed, were supplied with the application.

1. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/ac93b73e

Initial claim on social media: Pfizer made a $24.1 billion profit in the third quarter of 2021.

Updated claim: Thanks to its COVID-19 vaccine, Pfizer made a $24.1 billion profit in the third quarter of 2021. This was to clarify that the profit was not only for the vaccine.

Initial Judgment: False

Logically updated its judgment to “misleading” and rewrote the fact check’s claim to clarify that the original post had implied that all of the profits were due to vaccine sales. A corrections note was added to the fact-check to explain additions and changes that were made

"CORRECTION 20/12/2021: The original fact-check was updated to clarify the original claim that Pfizer's profit increase was due solely to sales of the COVID-19 vaccine." (See: https://bit.ly/3VdYoDH) 

A message was sent to the complainant informing them of the updated verdict and that the text of the fact-check had been edited to be more accurate.

2. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/e8507b5b  

Claim: A leaked letter from the World Economic Forum confirms that ‘The Great Reset’ is real

Initial Judgment: False

Updated Judgment: Misleading

This fact check was based on a letter from the World Economic Forum to the Dutch Government, inviting its representatives to discuss its proposals for rebooting the world’s economies in the wake of the pandemic. The WEF called these policy proposals the “Great Reset”. 

The letters to the Dutch government were shared online in numerous places, accompanied by claims that they were secret plans for a global takeover by a single government, and that these supposed plans had been leaked. On investigating the complaint, Logically says bit found that the plans were public, and not leaked.

It says: "The Great Reset conspiracy theory is a common, false narrative tying together many conspiratorial claims, often in an antisemitic direction, and we included information about what that conspiracy theory is and how it arose."

The following correction was published:

“A leaked letter from the World Economic Forum confirms that ‘The Great Reset’ is real” to “A government document confirms ‘The Great Reset’ conspiracy theory is real.”

The conclusion of the original fact-check was changed from “false” to “misleading.” 

Logically said: "We accept that there is a document in which the term “the Great Reset” is used. However, in the document, the term is not used in a conspiratorial context. We also edited the conclusion to state that Pepijn van Houwelingen, [who shared the WEF letter on Twitter], was a member of parliament and not a minister."

We inform users that they may inform the IFCN of any belief that we are violating the IFCN code of principles on the FAQ section on our website, where we detail our corrections policy (https://www.logically.ai/fact-check)

In the "Corrections" section of Logiclly's FAQs, it states: "If you believe Logically is violating the IFCN code of principles, you can inform the IFCN directly here. ("Here" links to IFCN's complaints page - https://bit.ly/2S4TNok 

The corrections policy of the Fact-Checking unit of Logically is published in the FAQ section of (https://www.logically.ai/fact-check) on our website. 

TheLogically Ltd is a tech company, of which Logically Fact-
checking is a unit. The fact-checking unit's corrections policy can be found here: https://www.logically.ai/fact-check