Editorial standards
These are the publication’s editorial standards. They describe required practice, not a certification that every past article or source has been verified.
Evidence
Daniel links numbers, dates, legal changes and allegations to the document or reporting that supports them.
Daniel distinguishes terrorism deaths, battle deaths, civilian targeting and violence by state forces. He places the dataset definition beside the statistic.
Daniel labels a government, military or armed-group statement as a claim until another source confirms it.
A source-dependent claim needs an opened source that supports it. Remove unsupported claims; withdraw the article if the remaining evidence cannot sustain its central argument. Preserve necessary uncertainty in supported evidence.
Labels used in papers
Source safety
Daniel removes names, metadata and operational detail when publication could expose a source, route, shelter, negotiation channel or community.
An editor may grant anonymity when the information matters, the source faces a credible risk and the editor knows the source’s identity. Daniel explains the reason without exposing the source.
Right of reply
Serious adverse findings should include a fair opportunity to respond where contact is safe. The current articles mainly use responses preserved in published reporting; they do not imply that Sahel Futures independently contacted those subjects.
Corrections
Material errors receive a visible dated note explaining what changed. Spelling, formatting and link repairs may be corrected without one. Older research cut-offs remain visible; an editorial review is not a comprehensive news update.
Correction history: The 6 September 2026 review corrected the cocaine seizure baseline, cannabis ranking and unsupported inferences; the AES article’s ICC-withdrawal timing and numerical ratings; Mauritania population figures; and Barrick’s accounting-loss description and an unsupported royalty statement. The fuller 11 September rewrite supersedes those versions. Current notes explain what was retained or removed in the cocaine assessment, AES assessment, Mauritania assessment, Barrick article and the other retained articles. The research register records current conclusions and the two withdrawals.
Funding
Daniel reports that Sahel Futures has received no institutional funding. If it accepts funding, he will name the funder and any restriction attached to the grant.
Daniel will retain editorial control and bar funders from confidential sources.
Research process
Sahel Futures uses AI for research, drafting, editing and website production. Daniel Spurr is responsible for what the site publishes.
AI output is not a source. Articles link to the underlying evidence and explain the limits of the checks performed. Sources and method notes describe the basis for each analysis.
Daniel reviews this policy when a correction, contributor agreement or funding decision exposes a gap.
Read the project statusOn 11 September 2026, we withdrew two articles after removing claims that lacked sufficient support:
The original articles have been removed from publication. We retain private copies for the correction record.
The first September review left some unsupported statements in place with qualifications. A further review removed them, rewrote the nine retained articles and withdrew the two listed above. We also removed the cocaine route map and unsupported confidence ratings. Each retained article has a dated rewrite note.
The new research register supersedes the earlier downloads, which contained outdated claims. We removed download links and trashed their media records. Old file addresses may still serve those files while permanent removal is pending; they should not be used as current research. Recovery copies are retained privately.