How Stream verifies — source hierarchy, cadence and corrections

Worked example — verifying a roster change

A tip arrives claiming a captain swap on Helix. The desk does not publish the tip. The desk opens the APAC circuit site and checks the registration system. If the swap is filed under rule 4.2, the desk verifies the filing, re-verifies the roster dossier within the hour, and publishes a wire note with the source and the timestamp. If the swap is not filed, the desk does not publish the tip and does not invent a filing.

The worked example is the desk's method in miniature. Primary source first. Verification timestamp second. Wire note third. Full chapter update fourth. The tip is never the primary source.

Worked example — verifying a schedule shift

A broadcaster announces a slot shift on social media. The desk does not publish the shift. The desk opens the circuit calendar and checks whether the shift is reflected. If the circuit calendar confirms the shift, the desk updates the tournament page and the viewing matrix within the hour and stamps both timestamps. If the circuit calendar does not confirm the shift, the desk flags the conflict and waits for the circuit to confirm.

The worked example is the desk's method in miniature. Circuit calendar first. Broadcaster social second. Conflict flag third. Confirmation fourth. The social post is never the primary source for a schedule shift.

Worked example — verifying a patch claim

A community summary claims a sentinel trap nerf in patch 7.4b. The desk does not publish the claim. The desk opens the developer release notes and checks the sentinel section. If the notes confirm a trap nerf, the desk updates the patch context and stamps the verification. If the notes do not confirm a trap nerf, the desk does not publish the claim and does not invent a nerf.

In the actual 7.4b release, the sentinel trap economy is unchanged. The relative power is higher because duelist entries cost more. The community summary was wrong. The desk did not publish it.

Why the method matters

The method matters because the desk's value is trust. Readers who trust the desk can follow a series without guessing. Readers who do not trust the desk will leave. The method is the only way to keep the trust. The method is published so that readers can audit it.

Source hierarchy in practice

Rank A sources are primary documents: registration PDFs, developer release notes, broadcaster schedules, governing-body notices. Rank B sources are verified social posts from teams, players or coaches. Rank C sources are outlet reporting that attributes a claim to a primary source. Rank D sources are community summaries.

The desk never presents a Rank D source as a confirmed fact. When a claim can only be attributed to Rank C or below, it is flagged as an editorial scenario. When a claim can be attributed to Rank A, it is published as a confirmed fact with a verification timestamp.

Cadence in practice

Active match windows are re-verified every 15 minutes because the path can change with every completed series. Bracket and schedule surfaces are re-verified hourly because broadcasters shift slots. Rosters are re-verified every 24 hours because substitutions are rarer. Patch context is re-verified every 48 hours for the first week because the meta takes time to settle. Editorial features are re-verified every 7 days because they are less time-sensitive.

When a timestamp is older than the cadence, the item is flagged as stale and is either re-verified or removed. The desk does not silently leave stale items on the wire.

Corrections in practice

A reader flags a roster error. The desk opens the registration PDF. If the PDF confirms the error, the desk updates the dossier, stamps the correction and publishes a public note. If the PDF does not confirm the error, the desk replies with the primary source and does not change the dossier.

The corrections route is open. Substantive corrections are timestamped and surfaced publicly. The desk does not bury corrections. The desk does not silently rewrite a past claim without a public note.

How to audit the desk

Open any dossier card or tactical callout. Read the source attribution. Open the primary source. Compare the claim to the source. If the claim matches, the desk is doing its job. If the claim does not match, file a correction. The method is published so that readers can audit it.

Teaching the method without becoming a style guide only

This chapter teaches the method with worked examples so it can be audited. It is not only a list of rules. Rules without examples become wallpaper. Examples without rules become anecdotes.

The roster, schedule and patch worked examples are deliberately ordinary. Ordinary cases are where method fails most often. Extraordinary scoops are rare. Daily verification is the real product.

Staff and readers share the same hierarchy language: Rank A through D. Shared language makes corrections faster. If a reader says "this is Rank C presented as Rank A," the desk knows exactly what to check.

The method will change when the product changes. When it changes, the guides chapter is updated and the edition masthead notes the change.

Common failure modes the desk watches for

Failure mode one: silent rewrite of a past claim. Defence: public correction stamps. Failure mode two: scenario presented as fact. Defence: two-column ledger and sentence-level review. Failure mode three: community summary laundered into patch context. Defence: primary release open in a second tab during write-up.

Failure mode four: illustrative handle treated as real roster. Defence: illustrative labels and roster-only-on-/teams/ rule. Failure mode five: sponsored language leaking into editorial paragraphs. Defence: banned-phrase list and boundary review on the responsible-play policy.

Failure mode six: stale timestamp left on a live surface. Defence: cadence flags and daily matrix builds. Failure mode seven: broken viewing route during a live window. Defence: high-priority matrix corrections.

Readers who spot a failure mode should file it. The desk would rather receive a sharp correction than a vague complaint.

How methodology pages relate to colophon

The homepage colophon is the short signature. The about page is the institutional colophon. This guides chapter is the long method. All three should agree. If they disagree, that is a bug and should be corrected with a stamp.

Methodology is not marketing. It is operational documentation published for trust. If a sentence sounds like slogan without a procedure behind it, it should be cut or rewritten as a procedure.

New staff — human or automated — should read this chapter before publishing. The chapter is the onboarding document.

External citations (Liquipedia, HLTV, VLR, official league pages) appear when used as Rank B/C support. They never replace Rank A when Rank A exists.