Transparency Report
Last updated: March 25, 2026
DRAFT — Pending legal counsel review before public launch.
Our Commitment
Warrant exists to make journalism more accountable. That accountability must apply to us too. This Transparency Report documents how we enforce integrity standards, handle moderation decisions, and maintain an auditable record of platform actions.
Integrity Labels
Warrant assigns integrity labels to published articles based on documented criteria. Labels are informational — they help readers evaluate content, not suppress it.
| Label | Meaning | Applied when |
|---|---|---|
| VERIFIED | Sources have been independently verified | Article meets sourcing quality threshold |
| DISPUTED | Active dispute filed against the article | Dispute submitted and under review |
| CORRECTION_ISSUED | Author has issued a correction | Factual error acknowledged and corrected |
| RETRACTED | Article retracted by author or admin | Fundamental accuracy or ethics violation |
| EDITORIAL_REVIEW | Under editorial review | Flagged for review pending resolution |
Reputation Scoring
Every journalist on Warrant has a reputation score (0–100, starting at 50) that reflects their track record on the platform. The score is affected by:
- Positive signals: publishing with strong sourcing, responsive corrections, dispute resolutions in the journalist’s favor
- Negative signals: upheld disputes, required corrections, retracted articles, sustained flags
Reputation scores affect article distribution weighting in the feed and payout calculations. The specific scoring formula is documented in our internal integrity model and will be published in full as part of our open-source transparency initiative.
Moderation Process
- Flagging: Any authenticated user can flag an article with a reason (factual error, missing context, misleading headline, etc.). Flags are reviewed and do not automatically affect content visibility.
- Disputes: A formal dispute can be filed against an article, triggering a structured review process. The journalist is notified and may respond. Disputes are resolved by platform administrators.
- Corrections: Journalists may issue corrections at any time. Corrections are versioned — the original text and all subsequent edits are preserved in the article history.
- Appeals: Journalists may appeal moderation decisions (labels, score adjustments). Appeals are reviewed by a different administrator than the one who made the original decision.
Audit Trail
Every state-changing action on Warrant is recorded in an immutable audit log. This includes: article publishing and withdrawal, flag creation and resolution, dispute filing and outcomes, label application and removal, administrative actions, and account status changes.
Audit logs include the acting user, action type, affected entity, timestamp, and IP address. These logs are retained indefinitely and form the basis of this transparency report.
Revenue Distribution
Subscription revenue is distributed to journalists proportionally based on two factors:
- Read share: the percentage of total subscriber reads attributed to a journalist’s articles
- Reputation weight: higher-reputation journalists receive a proportionally larger share, incentivizing accuracy and accountability
The platform retains a margin (currently 15%) to cover operating costs. Monthly revenue reports are available to journalists in their dashboard.
Aggregate Statistics
We plan to publish quarterly aggregate statistics on platform moderation activity:
- Total articles published
- Number of flags filed and their resolution rates
- Number of disputes filed, upheld, overturned
- Number of corrections and retractions
- Average reputation score distribution
- Total revenue distributed to journalists
Quarterly reports will begin once the platform reaches 10+ active journalists.
Contact
Questions about our moderation practices or this report? transparency@warrant.ink