Four checks before you repeat a claim
A ten-minute procedure that runs on paper, with no dataset at all.
A procedure that runs on paper
Everything in the previous modules requires a dataset. This does not. Four checks, about ten minutes, against any political claim you encounter or are about to make — ordered by errors caught per unit of effort.
Check one · Name the axis
Which of the six is this claim about? If it cannot be assigned to one, it is not yet a claim.
Extreme, radical, hardline and far are intensities, not measurements. Each tells you how much of something and none tells you of what — which is why the same word applies to anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism, to Kemalism and Khomeinism.
The test is one question, and it can be asked without hostility: extreme on what? Sometimes an answer comes back immediately and the conversation is now about something. More often there is a pause and then a list of policies spanning three different axes — which is itself the finding.
Run this on political commentary for a week and the result is bleak: most claims about position turn out to be unassignable. That is a reason to treat “which axis do you mean?” as a repair rather than a rebuttal. It improves an argument regardless of who wins it, and it is the only move here that is reliably welcome.
Check two · Test the name against the record
Four questions, in order of evidential weight:
| Legislated | Statutes passed while in office. The strongest evidence available, because it survived the whole apparatus of government. |
| Expropriated | What changed hands, in which direction, with or without compensation. The most reliable single indicator of economic position, and almost never what commentary discusses. |
| Banned | Organisations, publications, practices, people. The fastest read on both the concentration of power and the rule of membership, and hard to disguise. |
| Built | Institutions created, and their design. Is the new body accountable? Can a successor abolish it? |
Two cautions. For an organisation that has never held power there is no record, so the programme is all there is — read as intention, and treat conclusions as provisional. And a record can be sparse for good reasons: a party in coalition may have legislated little because it was outvoted.
Check three · Read the composition, not the distance
If a single axis carries most of the gap, the claim is about that axis and should be restated as such. If the axes carrying the gap are not the ones the claim asserts, the claim is a substitution.
That third case is the common one. Restating rather than rejecting is the productive move: it concedes what is true, isolates what is overstated, and produces a sentence the other person can defend or abandon. It is also not an accusation, and people accept restatements of their own claims far more readily than corrections of them.
Doing this without a dataset takes half an hour. Answer six questions with a rough number from −10 to +10 for each subject, using the anchor descriptions to keep the scale honest. Where you do not know, write unknown rather than guessing — an axis marked unknown tells you which part of your claim is unsupported, and if it is the axis your claim asserts, you have your answer already.
Check four · Check the frame
Any claim that an organisation has moved is a claim about two positions and requires both. Fix an earlier date, establish the position then from the record of that period, and compare.
Two questions distinguish drift from movement: has the organisation’s stated position changed? and has the surrounding distribution changed? If the first is no and the second is yes, the organisation has not moved.
Three common claims that the trajectory does not support: that the British Conservative Party has become more economically right-wing since the 1980s (it moved ten points between 1950 and 1983 and comparatively little since); that the US Republican Party moved sharply right after 2016 (it moved two points on one axis and none on the other five); and that European social democratic parties abandoned the left (most moved in the 1990s and moved back after 2000).
All three contain a true historical observation applied to the wrong period.
Run all four on a claim you believe
Take the political claim you are most confident about — the one where the other side seems obviously and culpably wrong. Write it in one sentence, then:
- Name the axis. If it is about more than one, split it and take the strongest.
- List the evidence: legislated, expropriated, banned, built. Documented acts only.
- Check whether the evidence is on the axis the claim asserts.
- Check the frame: absolute or relative, and did the midpoint move?
- Restate whatever survives.
If the restated version is the same as the original, you hold a well-formed view. If it is narrower, it is now a claim you can defend against anyone who asks which axis — which is the whole of what these modules had to offer.
One honest warning. This will occasionally produce a result you dislike, at roughly the rate it produces results you like, because the failure modes are structural rather than partisan. What you do in those cases determines whether you have acquired a method or a weapon, and nobody will be watching.
One or two emails a month, or none at all
Nine free modules, nothing gated, nothing to fill in. The update carries codings that changed, new claim checks, and at least one finding that went against the atlas. Nothing else, and one click to stop.
Site owner: set FORMSPREE_ID in offers.py to activate this form.