Most of what PSTET publishes comes from public documents, government notifications, examination board press releases, gazette publications, and official portals. This means we usually rely on named sources. But government recruitment is not always transparent, and there are occasions on which a person inside the system has information that the public deserves to know but cannot share publicly without risk to their position. This page describes the standards we apply on those rare occasions.
Default position: named sources
We name sources by default. Anyone whose words we quote, whose claims we report, or whose actions we describe is identified by name and role wherever possible. We do not grant anonymity for convenience, for stylistic effect, or because a source prefers it.
When we may use an unnamed source,
We will consider granting source confidentiality only when all of the following conditions are met:
- The information is of clear public interest; for example, evidence of irregularities in a recruitment process, advance notice of a major examination cancellation, or insider knowledge of a paper-leak investigation
- The source has direct, first-hand knowledge of the information being reported
- The source faces a credible risk of professional, legal, or personal harm if their identity is disclosed
- The information cannot be reasonably obtained from a named source or a public document
- The information can be at least partially corroborated through a second source or supporting documentary evidence
What we tell readers
When we use an unnamed source, we tell readers as much as we can about why the source is unnamed and what their position is, without identifying them. Generic descriptions like “sources said” are not enough. We aim for descriptions like the following:
- “An official familiar with the recruitment process, who requested anonymity because they are not authorised to speak publicly”
- “A candidate who appeared at the examination centre, who asked not to be named because they fear being barred from future examinations”
- “A senior official at the examination board, speaking on condition of anonymity because the matter is under internal review.”
The aim is to give the reader enough information to assess the credibility of the source without exposing it to harm.
Editorial review
A senior editor, not the reporting writer alone, makes the decision to publish information from an unnamed source. The editor must be persuaded that the conditions above are met and that the public interest in publishing outweighs the cost of using an unnamed source.
Verification standard
Information from an unnamed source is held to a higher verification standard than information from a public document, not a lower one. We do not publish single-sourced anonymous claims about specific individuals, examination outcomes, or recruitment decisions. Where the only available evidence is one anonymous source, we either wait for corroboration, attribute the claim very narrowly, or do not publish.
Protecting source identity
When we agree to grant a source confidentiality, we honor that commitment. We do not disclose the source’s identity to advertisers, third parties, or other readers under any circumstance, including in response to legal or commercial pressure. Communications with confidential sources are handled with care to avoid creating records that could later identify them.
Information given off the record
Sometimes a source provides information “on background,” meaning it can inform our reporting but cannot be quoted or attributed. We treat such conversations as guidance for further verification rather than as publishable material. Off the record information is not published unless it can be independently confirmed through on-the-record sources.