What we do
ConflictClarifier ingests articles, government statements, OSINT reports, market data, and humanitarian releases from a fixed list of public sources. We cluster reports about the same event into a single canonical record, attach the source list, and present a neutral summary alongside framings from up to six perspectives so readers can compare how the event is being told.
Every event, claim, and figure on the site carries a verification status, a source count, and a last-reviewed timestamp. Methodology pages explain how those labels are assigned and what their limits are.
What we are not
- We are not a wire service. If you need to know what is happening this minute, your local broadcaster will be faster.
- We are not an intelligence agency. We have no classified sources, no asset network, and no operational role.
- We are not a betting market. Where we show scenarios or predictions, they are framed as ranges with stated assumptions, not as forecasts.
- We are not neutral about facts. We are neutral about framing. If a claim is unsupported by evidence, we say so — even if a government or news outlet is making it.
Who it is for
The site is built for readers who want to understand a conflict beyond the news cycle: students, researchers, journalists, NGO staff, traders pricing risk, civil servants, and members of affected diasporas. We try to be useful both to a 17-year-old learning what the Strait of Hormuz is and to a security analyst tracking the next 24-hour window.
How we handle conflicting reports
During active conflict the same event is often reported with incompatible details by different sides. Our approach:
- We record the event once, with a neutral summary based on what is independently corroborated.
- We attach the contested claims to the event with their sources, status, and confidence — not as "truth", but as a record of what each side is saying.
- We generate framings for up to six perspectives so readers can see how the same base facts are being presented. The framings are interpretive analysis, not independent verification.
- When new evidence resolves a contradiction, the verification status changes and the update is logged on the event page — we do not silently rewrite history.
Why multi-perspective
Wartime information environments are designed to make readers pick a side. Single-source coverage — even from a respected outlet — tends to inherit the editorial assumptions of its country of origin. Showing the same event from multiple perspectives is the cheapest, fastest way for a reader to develop their own sense of which claims are stable across sides and which depend on whose mouth they came out of.
Limitations
We are dependent on the sources we can reach. Our coverage is biased toward English-language and OSINT-friendly material. Casualty figures during active conflict are usually wrong on the first attempt. State-affiliated sources are included by design — labelled — to expose framing differences, not to legitimise them. See data limitations for the full list.
How to contact us
For corrections, source suggestions, partnership enquiries, or general questions, see the contact page. We try to acknowledge correction reports within a few days.