The Crux Method and our standards

The Crux Method

Most news tells you what happened. Most commentary tells you what to think about it. PhiloCrux does something different: every week we take the stories shaping the world and examine them from both sides, then explain the ideas that make the disagreement real. We call this the Crux Method, and every piece of analysis follows it in six steps.

1. What happened. The news, in plain words and with sources.
2. The case for. The strongest version of the argument, made as its best defenders would make it.
3. The case against. The strongest rebuttal, not a straw man.
4. The crux. The real disagreement underneath, named in a sentence or two. Often the two sides agree on the facts and differ about a value, a forecast or a definition.
5. Our verdict. Where we come down and why, labelled as judgment rather than fact.
6. What to watch. The signals that would change our mind.

Sourcing

We prefer primary sources: documents, data, speeches, court filings, the texts of the thinkers we discuss. We link to what we rely on so that readers can check it. When a claim rests on a single source, or when evidence is contested, we say so in the text. Reference entries in our library (Answers, Glossary, Comparisons, Topics and Sources) are written to the same standard and cite the works they discuss.

The steelman rule

Before we criticise a position we state it in a form that its most capable defenders would accept. We name the thinkers on each side, and where a thinker is controversial we explain why the idea matters without endorsing the person. Covering an idea is not endorsing it.

Analysis, opinion and fact

We keep three things apart. Reporting and explanation say what is known. Analysis weighs evidence and arguments on both sides. Opinion appears only in clearly labelled places: our Leaders, which state the house position, and the "Our verdict" section of an analysis. Named columns carry the name of a thinker as a pen name and are labelled as columns.

Corrections and updates

When we get something wrong we fix it quickly and visibly. A corrected article carries a note at the top giving the date of the correction, and a note at the end saying what changed, and it is listed on our corrections page. We do not quietly rewrite. Substantive updates are marked "Updated" with the date.

Use of AI tools

PhiloCrux is produced by a newsroom that uses AI tools throughout its work. Research, drafting and first-pass editing are AI-assisted, under editorial rules written and reviewed by the publisher, and a note on every article says so. Before anything is published, each piece must pass a set of checks: every claim, figure, date and quotation is verified against sources opened during the research; every link is tested against the publisher it names; and a separate fact-check and editorial audit must both pass. Pieces that touch sensitive subjects, such as allegations about living people, are held for the publisher's personal review before they appear. The publisher, a person, is accountable for every word. When our checks or our readers find an error, we correct it visibly and log it on the corrections page.

Independence and conflicts of interest

PhiloCrux is a publication of Philosopheasy, independent and reader-funded. We do not publish sponsored content disguised as editorial, and advertisers and sponsors have no influence over what we cover. Where we have a relevant financial or personal interest in a subject, we disclose it in the piece or do not cover it.

Unsigned by design

PhiloCrux is published in one house voice, the way the great newsweeklies are. Read how that works.

Tell us we are wrong

If you believe we have made an error, write to contact@philosopheasy.com, reply to any of our newsletters or comment on the piece. We read every correction request, and corrections are logged on the corrections page.