Fact-checking policy

Last reviewed: October 31, 2026

RiftDaily covers League of Legends, esports, and the wider Riot Games ecosystem, including Teamfight Tactics, Wild Rift, 2XKO, and Riftbound. Our readers should be able to tell where a claim came from, how well it is supported, and whether the information is confirmed or still developing.

This fact-checking policy explains how we assess sources and verify factual claims before publication. It applies to news, patch coverage, esports reporting, interviews, guides, analysis, headlines, and related editorial material. It describes our verification standards, not a separate service that assigns truth ratings to every claim made online.

How we verify information

Our approach starts with the claim, not the headline we might want to write. Before publishing a material factual statement, we aim to establish what it says, who is making it, and what evidence supports it. The amount of checking depends on the nature of the claim and the potential consequences of getting it wrong.

1. Identify the factual claim. Separate verifiable information, such as a match result or announced release date, from predictions, opinions, and interpretations.
2. Find the original source. Trace the information to the relevant announcement, document, game client, broadcast, interview, tournament record, or other firsthand material where possible.
3. Assess the evidence. Check authenticity, context, timing, and whether the source actually supports the claim. Seek independent corroboration when necessary.
4. Check the details. Verify names, teams, dates, time zones, regions, game versions, statistics, quotations, and the difference between planned and released content.
5. Write with the appropriate certainty. Attribute important claims, explain material limitations, and avoid describing unconfirmed information as established fact.

Verification is not a fixed source-counting exercise. A direct and authentic Riot Games announcement may establish what Riot officially announced. A disputed roster rumor, anonymous allegation, or purported leaked screenshot needs more scrutiny. Several websites repeating the same original claim do not amount to independent confirmation.

How we evaluate sources

We prefer primary sources whenever they are available. Depending on the story, these include Riot Games communications, official patch notes, game clients, competition rules and results, tournament organizers, team and player statements, developer interviews, and original footage or documents.

For each important source, we consider its identity, access to the information, reliability, potential interests, and the context in which a statement was made. An official statement confirms that an organization made an announcement; it does not automatically establish the truth of every disputed claim surrounding it.

We also use credible reporting from other publications when appropriate. When another outlet originates a report, we aim to credit it and distinguish its findings from facts RiftDaily has independently verified. A social media repost, search snippet, or AI-generated summary is not a substitute for examining the underlying source.

We treat anonymous or confidential claims cautiously. Before relying on them, we consider why the source cannot be identified, whether they could plausibly know the information, what interests they may have, and what corroborating evidence exists. We do not invent sources, quotations, documents, interviews, or firsthand access.

Game updates, patch notes, and release information

Game information can change between an early preview, a test environment, an official announcement, and the live release. When covering League of Legends or another Riot title, we aim to check the relevant version and release stage rather than treating all available information as final.

• Patch and balance changes: Check patch numbers, champion and item adjustments, hotfixes, and whether changes are planned, tested, or live against appropriate official materials.
• Dates and availability: Distinguish announcement dates, scheduled launches, regional rollouts, early access, and confirmed availability. Scheduled dates may change.
• Skins, events, cards, and rewards: Check stated features, prices, currencies, eligibility, and regional limitations against the announcement or available in-game information where possible.
• Developer intentions: Distinguish a plan, proposal, or preview from a guaranteed release or permanent feature.

For example, we may consult official League of Legends patch notes and Riot's own support or developer communications. If an official source later revises an earlier announcement, we aim to make the changed information clear in relevant coverage.

Esports reporting and interviews

For esports coverage, we aim to verify match scores, schedules, standings, brackets, tournament formats, player identities, roster announcements, and relevant competition rules against organizer records, official broadcasts, team communications, or other reliable evidence.

Context matters. A statistic may apply only to one tournament stage, game version, region, or competitive season. We aim to identify that scope rather than compare figures that measure different things. We also distinguish a team's announcement from independent confirmation of disputed background circumstances.

For interviews, we check quotations against the original conversation, recording, transcript, or published statement when available. Paraphrases and translations should preserve the speaker's meaning. We do not present an interviewee's opinion or allegation as independently established fact. Serious contested claims require additional scrutiny and, where appropriate and reasonably possible, an opportunity for the affected party to respond.

Leaks, rumors, PBE, and datamining

Early information can be newsworthy, but its evidentiary status must remain clear. We use the following distinctions when assessing developing information:

• Confirmed: The particular claim is supported by an authentic official announcement or other sufficiently reliable direct evidence.
• Reported but unconfirmed: A claim has been attributed to a source, but RiftDaily cannot establish it as confirmed.
• Rumored or speculative: The claim is based on incomplete, disputed, or limited evidence, or on interpretation rather than confirmation.
• PBE or test-server content: Material observed in testing that may change, be delayed, or never reach the live game.
• Datamined content: Information found in game files that does not, by itself, prove a final design, price, release date, or launch.

When evaluating a purported leak, we consider the original source, available files or footage, consistency with other evidence, and the possibility of recycled, altered, or fabricated material. A leaker's previous accuracy is relevant context, not proof that a new claim is true. If the evidence is too weak, we may choose not to publish the claim.

Uncertainty should be apparent where readers encounter the claim, including in the headline when necessary, rather than being disclosed only at the end of the article.

Screenshots, videos, and social media

A screenshot, clip, or widely shared post can be a useful lead without being conclusive evidence. Where relevant and practical, we look for the original upload, verify the account or creator, check the publication date and surrounding context, and compare the material with other reliable sources.

We consider whether a visual may be cropped, edited, taken from an older patch, mislabeled, or generated with AI. Fan concepts, mockups, promotional illustrations, and test-build footage should not be presented as official final gameplay or authentic announcements without sufficient evidence. We do not treat engagement numbers or repeated reposts as proof of authenticity.

Guides, statistics, and context

Guides and evergreen articles require different checks from breaking news. We aim to verify instructions and factual explanations against the game version, mode, platform, region, or system they describe. We do not claim firsthand testing unless it actually occurred.

For data and comparisons, we aim to identify the relevant time period, sample, tournament stage, patch, and units of measurement. Estimates should be described as estimates, and predictions, tier lists, rankings, and strategic analysis should be recognizable as editorial judgment rather than official fact.

Because live-service games change, an older article can become outdated without having been inaccurate at publication. We aim to revisit significant information when material changes come to our attention, but cannot guarantee that every archived guide always reflects the latest patch.

AI-assisted research and editorial responsibility

RiftDaily may use AI-assisted tools for tasks such as organizing research, summarizing documents, transcription, translation, drafting support, and editing. These tools can introduce incorrect facts, fabricated sources, false quotations, or missing context. Their output is not independent confirmation of a claim.

Material facts, quotations, dates, figures, and source references suggested by AI must be checked against reliable underlying evidence before publication. We do not use an AI-generated answer as proof that an announcement, interview, game test, or event occurred. RiftDaily remains responsible for its published content regardless of the tools used to prepare it.

What happens when evidence is incomplete

Not every claim can be resolved immediately. When meaningful uncertainty remains, we may seek further documentation, attribute the claim to its source, explain what is not verified, or postpone publication. We do not treat a lack of official denial as confirmation.

We weigh the importance of the claim and the potential consequences of an error. Allegations about identifiable players, developers, creators, or organizations require particular care. We aim to consider relevant evidence that supports and challenges a claim rather than selecting only material that fits an expected conclusion.

Updates and corrections

Verification continues after publication when new evidence becomes available. A confirmed factual mistake requires a correction; new information about an accurately reported developing story may require an update; and wording that could mislead readers may require clarification.

Our Corrections policy explains how we handle these changes, including when a visible, dated correction notice is appropriate. We aim not to change publication dates merely to make older content appear new.

Questions, evidence, and related policies

If you believe an article includes an unsupported claim, incorrect statistic, misleading screenshot, or other factual problem, you can email contact@riftdaily.com or use our contact page. Please include the article URL, the specific information in question, and any relevant original sources or documentation. We review substantive concerns based on the available evidence.

This policy complements our Editorial policy, which covers our broader editorial standards, and our About RiftDaily page, which explains the publication and its coverage. We may revise this policy as our practices evolve and will update the review date when meaningful changes are made.