Editorial method · Reviewed 22 September 2026
Say what we know. Say what we don't. Show why.
Sourceborne is an independent game-intelligence publication. We trace material claims to their underlying sources, distinguish official information from reporting, rumour, inference and hypothesis, and preserve uncertainty when the evidence does not support a stronger answer.
Editorial rules
Repeated coverage does not become independent corroboration. When several articles ultimately rely on the same interview, report, listing or anonymous claim, Sourceborne treats them as one reporting chain. Where possible, we link to or identify the earliest inspectable source.
A vacancy, casting sheet, website tease and journalist's report can concern the same franchise without supporting the same claim. Those things may later connect, but Sourceborne does not merge them simply because they point toward the same game.
A source should support the statement beside it. Material claims carry nearby provenance wherever the page format allows it. If the strongest primary material is inaccessible, incomplete or preserved only through a reliable secondary record, that limitation stays visible.
When Sourceborne uses an evidence score, it applies to a specific proposition and its source chain. It is not a percentage chance that a game exists, ships on time or contains a particular feature.
Analysis does not become fact because it is plausible. Historical precedent can explain why something matters, but it cannot corroborate a current rumour by resemblance alone.
Unknown dates, platforms, identities, feature details and contradictions remain unknown until evidence resolves them. A developer describing a feature does not by itself prove how that feature behaves in a public build.
From source to page
The public page is the end of the process, not the beginning.
Sourceborne starts with sources: first-party announcements, interviews, public records, store pages, developer material, attributable reporting and other inspectable evidence. Relevant statements are separated into claims so that each can keep its own provenance, status and history.
Those claims contribute to a maintained body of knowledge about the game. Reference pages, timelines, FAQs, news articles and analysis are different public views of that knowledge.
That distinction matters because an article can become old while the underlying evidence remains useful. It also means a correction to one claim should not require the rest of a game's history to be rewritten around it.
AI can assist with research, comparison and drafting. It does not establish truth, make a source independent, turn a hypothesis into knowledge or publish directly on Sourceborne.
Claim states
A first-party source directly establishes the material claim, such as a publisher announcement, official product page or attributable developer statement.
The developer has described the feature, design or intended behaviour, but public observation has not independently demonstrated how it works in practice.
An accountable publication or named journalist reports the claim. Its strength depends on the original reporting chain, not the number of outlets repeating it.
A traceable allegation exists, but its support is weak, incomplete or difficult to verify.
The underlying observation may be real while the meaning attached to it remains interpretation.
The available evidence does not support a reliable answer.
A developer has shown or described something that is still changing. It should not be presented as a final implementation.
A feature or behaviour has been directly visible in a public build, demonstration or other inspectable public material. Observation does not automatically establish quality, final scope or permanence.
The information was valid for an earlier version, plan or continuity state but has since been replaced or overtaken. Useful historical material stays where it explains how the current position changed.
Evidence scores
Sourceborne's fixed evidence scale grades the support for a specific claim, not the game as a whole. A strong source for one claim cannot be inherited by a neighbouring claim the source never made.
The score does not replace the source. Readers should still be able to understand what the evidence actually is.
Maintaining the record
Most page changes are updates: new evidence arrived, a developer clarified something, a public build exposed a system or an unknown became known.
A correction is different. It means Sourceborne materially stated something incorrectly.
Corrections should be visible when the error matters to the reader. Ordinary evidence updates should preserve history without turning every changed development plan into an editorial apology.
Coverage depth
Not every game needs the same number of pages. A project with little reliable information may be best served by one maintained dossier. A game with a release programme, public tests, detailed systems, a long franchise history or substantial search demand can justify specialist pages for distinct reader needs.
More pages are not evidence of better coverage. The useful question is whether each page can answer something genuinely different.
Independence
The aim is simple: give readers the strongest current understanding the evidence supports, keep the source trail intact, and stop where the evidence stops.