Audio
Episodes
Deep dives and the week in review, three times a week. 41 published.
0x13D Research
We check what was said, and keep the receipt.
A fact-checking operation and the tools it had to build to do the work. Every claim is quoted verbatim, adjudicated with its evidence, and filed at the second it was said — then joined to every other show that ran the same claim.
18shows tracked
191episodes checked
11,159claims extracted
8,975carry a verdict
Archive totals as of 31 August 2026. Extracted and adjudicated are different numbers on purpose — the gap is claims located but not yet checked, and the public reader publishes a further subset that clears the publication gate.
01 — Work
Six projects, one archive
The show is the reason the rest exists. Everything below reads from the same corpus of claims; the difference between them is who is holding it and what they are trying to see.
-
01
The Narrative Networks Podcast shipping
The show · deep dives & week in review
Three times a week. A single claim taken apart to the source, with the verdict, the truth score and the strongest version of the other side all said out loud rather than implied.
Named for the DARPA research programme on how stories act on group behaviour — a borrowed term, and we say whose.
-
02
Project Ariadne shipping
The archive and its public reader
Every published claim, its evidence, and the tracked narratives that run underneath them — threads that connect claims whose surface tags never touch. The whole corpus is queried in your browser; no account, no server round trip per keystroke.
Named for the thread. The English word clue is the same word as clew, a ball of thread, and its figurative sense is attested from the 1590s in reference to the one Ariadne gave Theseus.
-
03
Theseus Terminal shipping
The desktop control room
Where the pipeline is run and the calls are made: transcription, claim extraction, adjudication, thread promotion, and the review queue that decides what may be published. Internal.
The maze is not solved by strength; it is solved by keeping a record of the path.
-
04
Project Aperio prototype
Browser extension · Chrome, Edge
The archive in the YouTube progress bar. It works out which episode you are watching, puts every checked claim on the video's own timeline, and — the part nothing else does — names the other shows that ran the same claim.
It changes nothing on the page unless you ask it to. Latin aperire, to open or uncover: the root of both aperture and overt.
-
05
Project Adsero new
The podcast player · desktop
Browse the shows we cover and play our own episodes with every claim pinned to the second it was said. Our podcasts, the video cuts and the encyclopedia in one place.
It pins a claim only on audio we archived at transcription time. Podcast ads are inserted at request time, so a publisher's file today is not the file we transcribed and our timings would land minutes off — those episodes are read rather than played, and the app says so. A wrong timestamp costs more than a missing one.
-
06
Project Ares in development
Influence-strategy game
Play the other side. A capability tree, doctrine points and heat, run over a globe — the narrative engines we document in the show, made operable so their shape is legible from the inside.
02 — Publications
What we put out
Video
Shorts
The video cuts — one claim, taken apart, in the time it takes to scroll past it.
Reference
Encyclopedia
Where our vocabulary came from and whether it is ours. One entry per coinage, with its sourcing and its honest flags — including the ones that are weakly sourced.
03 — Method
The standard we hold ourselves to
Specificity replaces adjectives. A file path, a date, a named actor or a real number is a better sentence than a superlative, and a claim that cannot be pointed at a document or a public record gets cut.
We do not rent authority. Our own vocabulary is never attributed to unnamed outside experts — not media analysts refer to it as, not what scientists would call. If we coined it, we say so. If someone else did, we name them. An operation that checks other people's claims does not get to invent citations for its own words, and we have broken this rule and written down where.
The verdict goes in the copy. The most-dropped element in our own audited episodes was the adjudication itself — a brief reading false, truth score 0.04 and an episode containing no false and no score. So we read our own episodes back against the brief, and the gaps are logged like anyone else's.
An honest gap beats a plausible guess. Where we cannot locate a claim to the word, or cannot verify the audio it sits in, we say nothing rather than something that looks right.