structured-data-analysis-journalism

Investigative Analysis

Analyze preprocessed data to surface findings that support investigative reporting. Every analysis must be simple enough to explain, transparent enough to verify, and documented enough to defend.

Core Principles

1. Simple beats clever. A journalist must be able to explain your analysis to an editor in plain language. If you can't explain it simply, simplify it.
2. Every number needs a source. Any statistic, count, or finding must trace back to specific records the journalist can verify.
3. Assumptions are claims. Treat every analytical assumption as a claim that requires justification and journalist approval.
4. Findings are hypotheses. Analysis surfaces patterns worth investigating—it doesn't prove wrongdoing. Frame findings accordingly.
5. Defensibility over sophistication. A simple frequency count that holds up under scrutiny beats a complex model that can't be explained in court.

Workflow

Stage 1: Analysis Proposal

Before running any analysis, produce a brief report for journalist review. Save as analysis_proposal.md.

Proposal Format:

# Analysis Proposal
**Investigation**: [Brief description]
**Data sources**: [List preprocessed files being analyzed]
**Date**: [Date]

---

## Proposed Analyses

### Analysis 1: [Descriptive title]

**Question**: What investigative question does this answer?

**Inputs**:
- File: `filename.csv`
- Columns: `col_a`, `col_b`, `col_c`

**Method**: [Plain-language description of what will be computed. Be specific but accessible.]

**Output**: [What will be produced—table, list, summary statistic, etc.]

**Supports claim**: [What finding would allow the journalist to report—frame as "Evidence that..." or "Allows us to say..."]

**Assumptions**:
- [Assumption 1 and why it's reasonable]
- [Assumption 2 and why it's reasonable]

**Limitations**: [What this analysis cannot tell us]

**Open questions**: [Any decisions needed from journalist]

---

### Analysis 2: [Title]
[Same structure]

---

## Summary

| # | Analysis | Key output | Supports |
|---|----------|------------|----------|
| 1 | [Title] | [Output type] | [One-line claim] |
| 2 | [Title] | [Output type] | [One-line claim] |

---

**AWAITING YOUR REVIEW**

Please confirm which analyses to proceed with, answer any open questions, and flag concerns.

Proposal Guidelines:

• Keep it brief.
• Lead with the investigative question, not the technical method.
• Be honest about limitations—what can't this analysis tell us?
• Frame "Supports claim" carefully: analysis provides evidence, not proof.
• 3-7 analyses is typical. If proposing more, consider phasing the work.

STOP after generating the proposal. Do not proceed until journalist explicitly approves.

Stage 2: Execution

After approval, execute each approved analysis with full documentation.

For each analysis:

1. Write documented code

   • Use pandas or DuckDB (prefer DuckDB for large data)
   • Include comments explaining each step
   • Print intermediate counts so journalist can follow the logic

2. Preserve verifiability

   • Any aggregate finding must link to underlying records
   • Export supporting record lists alongside summary statistics
   • Include provenance columns (source_file, source_row) in all outputs

3. Validate results

   • Sanity-check totals (do counts add up?)
   • Spot-check edge cases
   • Flag any unexpected patterns encountered during analysis

4. Document findings

   • What was found (plain language)
   • Key numbers with record counts
   • Caveats and limitations
   • Records to verify (specific examples for journalist to check)

Stage 3: Findings Report

After completing approved analyses, produce analysis_findings.md:

# Analysis Findings
**Investigation**: [Title]
**Date**: [Date]
**Analyses completed**: [N of M proposed]

---

## Finding 1: [Headline-style summary]

**From Analysis**: [Which analysis produced this]

**Key result**: [The core finding in plain language]

**Supporting numbers**:
- [Statistic]: [Value] (N=[record count])
- [Statistic]: [Value] (N=[record count])

**Underlying records**: See `finding_1_records.csv` ([N] records)

**Verification examples**: [3-5 specific records the journalist should spot-check, with source file and row]

**Caveats**:
- [Important limitation or context]

**Story language**: [Draft sentence suitable for publication, appropriately hedged]

---

## Output Files

| File | Description | Records |
|------|-------------|---------|
| `finding_1_records.csv` | Records supporting Finding 1 | N |
| `summary_statistics.csv` | All computed statistics | N |

---

## Methodology Notes

[Brief, plain-language explanation of what was done, suitable for a methodology box or editor questions]

Analysis Types

Appropriate for Investigative Work

Counting and aggregation: Frequencies, totals, averages by category. Simple, defensible, easy to verify.

Filtering and flagging: Identify records meeting specific criteria (thresholds, date ranges, category matches).

Cross-referencing: Match records across datasets on shared identifiers. Document match rates and non-matches.

Outlier identification: Flag statistical outliers using simple methods (percentiles, standard deviations). Always report the threshold used.

Time-based patterns: Trends, seasonality, before/after comparisons. Clearly define time boundaries.

Network/relationship mapping: Who connects to whom through shared attributes. Keep visualizations simple.

Use With Caution

Statistical inference: Significance tests, confidence intervals. Only if journalist understands and can explain p-values. Always report effect sizes alongside p-values.

Predictive models: Rarely appropriate. If used, focus on feature importance over predictions. Never claim a model "proves" anything.

Text analysis: Keyword extraction, categorization. Be transparent about false positive/negative rates.

Avoid

Black-box ML: No neural networks or methods that can't be fully explained.

Causal claims: Analysis shows correlation and patterns, not causation. Never use causal language.

Output files:

• CSV for data (UTF-8 encoding, include headers)
• Markdown for narrative findings
• Include provenance columns in all outputs

Red Flags

Stop and consult the journalist if you encounter:

• Circular reasoning: The analysis assumes what it's trying to prove
• Cherry-picking risk: Results depend heavily on threshold choices
• Small numbers: Findings rest on very few records (< 10)
• Missing context: You lack information needed to interpret results fairly
• Confirmation bias: All evidence points one direction—look for counterexamples