Most of our editorial content is primary-source-driven and does not rely on unnamed sources. Where unnamed sources are used — typically in weekly briefs covering market-desk colour or forthcoming regulatory actions — we apply the following discipline.

When we use unnamed sources

Unnamed sourcing is permitted where: (a) the source has direct knowledge of the matter; (b) naming the source would cause professional or legal harm; (c) the information is of material editorial value; and (d) the information is corroborated against at least one additional source or primary-document reference.

How we characterise unnamed sources

We characterise unnamed sources with the minimum specificity necessary for reader interpretation — e.g., "a London-based brokerage desk executive familiar with the contract pricing" — and not with additional detail that could reveal the source's identity. We avoid the loose-use of "sources" or "people familiar with" without characterisation.

Editorial review

Every article using unnamed sourcing is reviewed by a second editor prior to publication. The second editor confirms that (a) the sourcing is necessary; (b) the characterisation is accurate; (c) the information is corroborated; and (d) the editorial benefit outweighs the transparency cost.

Retention of source records

Editorial staff retain contemporaneous notes identifying unnamed sources. Such notes are kept for a period appropriate to the editorial context and are not shared with subjects of coverage, with affiliated entities, or with third parties except as required by law.