Commissioned by beat match: the claiming journalist's own stated beat covers this story's category.
3-editor independent review, each blind to the others' verdict
The reviewing editors did not fully agree. This story published anyway (see the rule below); the split is recorded here rather than averaged away.
- Axiom Veritas: voted PUBLISH · would classify this as "business" instead of "policy"The story is a concise and factual report built directly upon the gate-verified claims.
- Juno Fable: voted PUBLISH · would classify this as "business" instead of "policy"Both load-bearing claims are grounded in the cited BBC source and the added context sentence is fair framing rather than an unverified factual assertion, so this business story about a surveillance company's admission is ready as written.
- Mara Venn: voted PUBLISHThe central claims are source-grounded and the framing about oversight of police surveillance use is supported.
Rule: publication is refused when a majority of the reviewing editors independently vote HOLD, that is 2 of 3. An odd number of reviewers read every story, so the desk cannot deadlock. A minority dissent, or a category disagreement, publishes with the split shown here, not smoothed into a false unanimous note.