Research & Sourcing Methodology

Good analysis depends on good evidence.

ALBORITHM covers subjects that rarely fit neatly into one discipline. Shipping connects with trade, energy, infrastructure, regulation and geopolitics. Markets connect with monetary policy, capital flows, currencies and expectations. Technology connects with industrial policy, productivity, supply chains and strategic power. Our research process is designed around those connections.

We begin with a question

Research starts with a question, not a conclusion. Before gathering evidence, we try to define what the analysis is actually attempting to explain. That may mean understanding why freight rates are moving, what a policy decision means for markets, why a chokepoint matters to world trade, or which forces are driving a currency, commodity or interest-rate move.

A clear question helps prevent research from becoming a collection of disconnected facts.

We prefer primary evidence

Where suitable primary evidence exists, we prefer to use it. Depending on the subject, this may include official trade and economic statistics, central-bank publications, government and regulatory documents, port and maritime authority data, company filings, commodity and financial-market data, freight and shipping indices, international-organisation datasets and academic research.

Secondary sources remain useful, especially for chronology, context, expert commentary and developments that have not yet appeared in formal datasets. The aim is not to avoid secondary reporting. It is to understand what the underlying evidence actually is.

We assess sources by relevance, authority and proximity

A source is useful not because it is famous, but because it is appropriate to the question. A central bank is usually a stronger source for policy decisions than market commentary. A port authority may be more useful for throughput data than a general news report. A regulatory filing is normally more authoritative for a company’s disclosed financial position than third-party commentary.

We cross-check important claims

Material claims are cross-checked wherever practicable, especially when information is fast-moving, commercially sensitive, politically contested, based on estimates or likely to influence the main conclusion.

Multiple reports are not treated as independent confirmation if they all rely on the same original source.

We distinguish data from interpretation

A number and the meaning assigned to that number are not the same thing. The data may show that freight rates increased. The explanation for that increase may involve several competing factors. The data may show that a currency weakened. Determining why may require examining interest-rate expectations, capital flows, trade conditions, commodity prices and market positioning.

Our research therefore separates observed evidence from analytical interpretation.

We check comparability and transformations

Different datasets often measure similar things in different ways. Definitions, time periods, currencies, geographic coverage, sampling methods and revision schedules can all affect the result.

Where data is combined, converted, aggregated, normalised, inflation-adjusted or otherwise transformed in a way that materially affects interpretation, that treatment should be identified where practicable. If datasets are not directly comparable, the limitation should be made clear.

We use history carefully

Historical evidence can be useful, but analogy has limits. Previous oil shocks, shipping disruptions, rate cycles or geopolitical events may help explain the present, but they are not identical to current conditions. Changes in technology, market structure, regulation, demographics and global power can make superficially similar events behave differently.

Historical comparison is therefore used as context, not as proof that history must repeat itself.

Industry experience informs interpretation

In subjects such as shipping, logistics and supply chains, practical industry knowledge can help explain what raw data does not show. Operational experience can provide context around vessel deployment, freight markets, port constraints, network design, capacity, congestion and commercial incentives.

That experience informs interpretation. It does not replace evidence.

We work across disciplines

Many important developments sit between established categories. A trade restriction may be simultaneously an economic, geopolitical and industrial-policy issue. A semiconductor shortage may involve technology, trade, capital investment and national security. A shipping disruption may affect inflation, inventories, corporate margins and monetary policy.

Our methodology deliberately crosses those boundaries when the subject requires it.

We handle conflicting evidence openly

Credible sources can disagree. The reason may be timing, methodology, geography, definitions, revisions or assumptions. When different sources produce materially different conclusions, we do not simply choose the number that best supports the argument. We examine why the difference exists.

Where the disagreement cannot be resolved, the uncertainty remains part of the analysis.

Forecasts and scenarios are not facts

Forecasting is useful, but uncertainty should remain visible. ALBORITHM distinguishes between historical data, current estimates, assumptions, forecasts and scenarios. A scenario describes what could happen under a set of assumptions. It is not a statement that the outcome will happen.

Maps, charts and third-party material

Visuals should serve the research. Charts should identify their data source, period and units where practicable. Maps should be geographically accurate and used carefully where territorial representation may be sensitive. Infographics should simplify information without altering its meaning.

Third-party data, charts, maps, images and other materials remain subject to the original provider’s copyright, licensing and usage terms. Inclusion or citation by ALBORITHM does not transfer ownership or create broader rights of reuse.

Freshness depends on the question

Not every source needs to be recent. Market prices, policy announcements, freight conditions and breaking geopolitical developments may require information updated within hours or days. Historical research, institutional frameworks and scientific findings may rely on older material that remains authoritative.

Freshness matters, but relevance and authority matter more.

We want readers to be able to check the work

Important sources should be identified wherever practical. The purpose is not citation for its own sake. It is to give readers a path back to the evidence.

Source links may change, move behind access controls or disappear over time. Where possible, enough identifying information should remain for the underlying evidence to be located independently.

Final editorial review

Before publication, research is reviewed for factual consistency, source quality, data interpretation, unsupported claims, internal contradictions, outdated information, analytical coherence, the distinction between evidence and inference, and material uncertainty.

No research process eliminates every possibility of error. The responsibility is to use reasonable editorial care, correct material mistakes when identified and remain transparent about uncertainty.

Our approach

ALBORITHM’s research methodology rests on a few simple principles: use the strongest evidence available, check important claims, understand the source behind the source, separate fact from interpretation, explain uncertainty and give readers enough context to make their own judgment.

That is the standard we seek to apply across articles, documentaries, podcasts, newsletters, charts and research-led publications.