Public method contract
How Clarity Today reads
Clarity Today tells builders, operators and investors what changed, why it matters and what to ignore. This page is how we earn that. Clarity separates what sources reported from what the evidence establishes, how far adoption has moved, and which incentives may shape the framing. A missing measurement stays visibly not scored; it is never replaced by a fabricated score.
How we work
Clarity Today is written by software. Language models draft every article, headline and summary from the reporting it cites, and no person reads each article before it publishes.
What is automated
Software does every step: finding reports, grouping the ones that describe the same event, choosing which events become stories, drafting, the claim ledger, the checks below, and the order of the front page. The model that drafts an article also writes each factual claim it makes into the ledger, with the source it came from. Newsletter editions are written by models from published stories, and other models check each edition against those stories before it is sent. Ask Clarity answers a reader’s question about a story with a language model.
Automated checks run on every draft before it publishes:
- Every factual claim goes into the article’s claim ledger with the source it came from. An article that cites a claim missing from its ledger does not publish.
- An editing model reads the draft for the habits of machine-written prose and may revise its wording.
- Our policy is that every quotation appears word for word in a cited source. A quotation that does not match is paraphrased or cut, and the article does not publish if it still fails. Where we captured too little of a source’s text to compare, the check cannot confirm the quotation.
- A long passage copied from one source without quotation marks is rewritten as an attributed quotation or a paraphrase, and the article does not publish if it still fails.
- A second model checks each headline against the claim ledger. A headline the claims do not support is rewritten once and checked again; if it still fails, or the check cannot run, the article does not publish.
- “N publishers” counts distinct publishers whose article text we could read, and leaves out an article that is a near-copy of another publisher’s. It never counts links or repeats.
- A daily check revisits cited source links, oldest-checked first. Once a link is confirmed dead the page stops linking it; an uncertain result never removes a link.
Bylines name house desks, not people, and Clarity Today, the organization, is the author in our structured data. A picture is either the publisher’s own photograph, credited and linked, or a generated illustration labeled as one.
How claims are checked
After a story publishes, a separate model reads its claims against the reporting we collected on the same event. For each source it records whether the source supports a claim, contradicts it or only adds context. It then gives each claim a state, shown in the story’s claim list: Supported, Contested where the reporting disputes it, or Insufficient where the sources do not establish it. A claim shows no state until this check has run.
A source that contradicts a claim stays in that claim’s record, and signed-in readers can open each claim’s evidence source by source. When more reporting on the event arrives, the check runs again, so a claim’s state can change after publication.
Corrections
If a story gets something wrong, send the story link and what is wrong to contact@theclarity.today. North Pulse LLC is accountable for these standards. When a story changes, its link still leads to it, and a story that changes on a later day than it was published shows when it was last updated.
Who publishes Clarity Today
Clarity Today publishes theclarity.today and its newsletters. For corrections or anything else, write to contact@theclarity.today.
North Pulse LLC also operates theclarity.us, Clarity’s personalised morning edition, and it is made the same way: language models write each reader’s edition and its podcast from the reporting they cite, synthetic voices read the podcast, and no person reads an edition before it reaches a reader.
We use automation so six desks can cover far more of each day’s reporting than anyone could read by hand, with every claim traceable to the outlet that reported it.
Readers in the EU and EEA see the mark “AI-written · How we work”, which links here, next to each article’s byline and in each newsletter’s footer, on theclarity.today and on theclarity.us. In ChatGPT, our story cards show it when ChatGPT places the reader in the EU or EEA. The Atom feed and the agent server carry it once.
From source items to story clusters
Every candidate needs a real body-backed source item. Reports are grouped only when the available evidence shows that they describe the same event. When that evidence is incomplete or uncertain, the reports remain separate—the safe failure direction is under-merging, because over-merging would fabricate corroboration.
Source counts mean distinct body-backed publishers in the current cluster, not claims, URLs, or repetitions.
Claims and evidence
Every published story commits with its claim ledger in the same transaction. Article claim references link to current-revision story claims, and evidence records state whether a source supports, contradicts, or contextualizes a claim. A dangling citation or incomplete ledger makes the story ineligible for publication. The recurring Clarity Evidence Index publishes the aggregate coverage produced by that ledger.
Perspective Coverage
Perspective Coverage describes which Builder, Operator, and Investor concerns sources emphasize. Each publisher contributes one normalized three-seat observation; the displayed shares are the aggregate publisher emphasis and sum to 100%. It is coverage, not truth, sentiment, or reader preference.
A measured summary requires at least three publishers and complete publisher-key coverage. Below that boundary the state is insufficient.
Reality Strip
The Reality Strip is separate from Perspective Coverage. Each dimension must have its own current evidence links or render as Not scored, with the reason beside it; one strong dimension cannot silently stand in for another.
Evidence
Range 0–100
How directly the displayed claims are supported by current, linked source evidence.
Adoption
Range 0–100
What demonstrated use exists beyond an announcement, launch, or stated intention.
Hype Gap
Range −100–100
The signed distance between demonstrated reality and promotional framing; negative and positive values have different meanings.
Incentives
Range 0–100
How materially source ownership, funding, affiliation, or commercial position may shape the observed framing.
Confidence
Range 0–100
How much confidence the complete current evidence contract supports.
Off Radar
Off Radar is an information-gap product, not inverted Perspective Coverage. Anonymous readers see a chosen seat baseline. Signed-in readers may receive a personal view when there is enough recent activity to identify meaningful coverage gaps. Materiality, exposure, evidence, and freshness remain the governing safeguards. Read the full Off Radar method.
Bylines, art, and corrections
Bylines are house desks, not synthetic people; schema.org author remains the Clarity organization. A hero is a publisher photograph only when the publisher offered it and the page visibly credits and links the source. Otherwise it is identified as generated illustration. Send corrections to contact@theclarity.today. We check each report against the sources and reply to it. When a story was wrong, we fix it and print a dated note under its byline saying what changed, and the corrections log lists every one.
Browse the live source registry or discover current intelligence.