Miżien

Methodology

How claims are connected

Claims are connected in three ways: by themes the editors set, by pattern tags, and by the bodies that made them. Indirect connections are then found by following the themes. A connection is a reason to read two checks side by side. It is never evidence for or against either claim.

Themes and direct links

A theme is something several claims have in common: a shared cause, a shared mechanism, a shared target, a shared flow of material, or a shared way of presenting figures. Two claims in the same theme are linked directly. On the map these are the coloured lines; on a claim page they are listed under Connections, with what connects them.

Each theme has a strength:

  • Strong: the shared cause, mechanism or target is documented in the sources of the checks.
  • Weak (indicative): a plausible connection proposed while claims are collected. It stays indicative until a finished report confirms it.
  • Pattern, not causal: the claims present evidence in the same way. Nothing connects them physically.

97 of 130 claims are linked to at least one other. A new claim has no links until the editors place it in a theme.

ThemeKindClaimsWhat connects them
Sealed soil and concrete Shared mechanism
Strong		 CC-001 CC-002 CC-008 CC-012 CC-019 Excavation, concrete and sealed surfaces around trees. The EU review notes sealed or degraded soil keeps increasing in Malta.
Replanting as currency Shared mechanism
Strong		 CC-001 CC-002 CC-008 CC-010 CC-054 CC-056 CC-057 Tree losses are justified by promised replacement or transplanting. Test survival and net canopy, not planting counts.
Water chain: farm waste, sewage, sea, aquifer Shared cause
Strong		 CC-005 CC-009 CC-039 CC-041 CC-042 CC-043 CC-047 CC-101 CC-108 CC-118 The Commission blames farm waste in the sewers for poor treatment; agricultural nitrates are behind groundwater failure. Treated water also feeds 'new water' irrigation.
Transport, air and climate Shared driver
Strong		 CC-003 CC-007 CC-008 CC-016 CC-021 CC-026 CC-035 CC-069 CC-071 CC-072 CC-076 CC-109 CC-110 CC-115 Fleet growth links traffic claims, air quality and emissions. The climate report names transport and buildings as the lagging sectors.
Waste and construction Shared material flow
Weak (indicative)		 CC-002 CC-004 CC-008 CC-017 CC-063 CC-079 CC-080 CC-081 CC-082 CC-111 CC-117 Inert mineral waste dominates Malta's recycling statistics, which ties waste claims to development projects. ERA and NSO confirm construction waste was about 2.2 of 2.9 Mt generated in 2023; the link to specific projects is still indicative.
Selective-metric pattern Rhetorical pattern
Pattern, not causal		 CC-003 CC-004 CC-007 CC-010 CC-022 CC-025 CC-026 CC-051 CC-079 CC-110 CC-114 A favourable metric is cited while the regulator-relevant metric looks worse. Useful for tagging, not for implying a common cause.
2030 carbon target Shared target
Strong		 CC-003 CC-011 CC-024 CC-025 CC-094 CC-109 CC-114 The Climate Action Authority and the 2026 Labour manifesto (priority 18) both state a 40% cut in carbon emissions by 2030 against 2005, without saying whether it covers total or effort-sharing emissions.
Planning, housing and land take Shared driver
Strong		 CC-013 CC-014 CC-017 CC-018 CC-019 CC-058 CC-060 CC-062 CC-123 Permit volumes, enforcement and housing demand drive land take. Claims about prices, enforcement, reclamation and land loss rest on the same planning system and the same data (PA permits, NSO prices, land-cover maps).
Compliance-not-health pattern Rhetorical pattern
Pattern, not causal		 CC-007 CC-020 CC-033 Meeting an EU legal limit or procedure is presented as if it meant a health-protective level: air (WHO PM2.5 guideline) and noise (WHO noise guidelines).
Tourism pressure and carrying capacity Shared driver
Weak (indicative)		 CC-083 CC-084 CC-085 CC-086 CC-089 CC-098 CC-100 CC-112 CC-122 Record arrivals, hotel pipelines and concessions on public land: claims about tourism growth and its limits share one driver. Indicative until a report tests it.
Heat, power cuts and health Shared driver
Weak (indicative)		 CC-027 CC-090 CC-097 CC-103 The July heatwaves, the power cuts that accompanied them, and the health response: claims about causes (heat vs generation), deaths, worker exposure and disclosure share one event and one data gap (where deaths occurred, and whether outages coincided).
Oversight and disclosure Rhetorical pattern
Pattern, not causal		 CC-102 CC-103 How public bodies respond to scrutiny: an Ombudsman finding left unimplemented, and a request for data refused with a promise to publish later. Useful for tracking follow-through; not evidence of a common cause.
Noise governance Shared target
Weak (indicative)		 CC-020 CC-104 CC-105 CC-120 Claims about whether Malta maps, plans for and acts on noise under Directive 2002/49/EC and the WHO guidelines: the 2026 EP study, the PN petition and ADPD's call for a Freeport and airport study.
Energy subsidies Shared driver
Weak (indicative)		 CC-022 CC-095 CC-113 CC-124 Claims about what energy support costs and what it shields: the lowest-electricity-burden claim, the Finance Minister's EUR 400 million a year (2026-27), and the EEA ranking of fossil-fuel subsidies by share of GDP. They rest on different definitions of subsidy. CC-095 (10 Oct 2026) set them side by side: the IMF figures used in CC-022 and the Government's own 2023 figure fit Eurostat's COFOG fuel-and-energy subsidies, while the Commission database's 2023 entries for Malta used in CC-113 equal the October 2022 budget allocation (EUR 595m), 2.5 times the Government's later 2023 figure (EUR 242.5m, energy and food).
Heritage and development control Shared mechanism
Weak (indicative)		 CC-065 CC-066 CC-116 CC-121 Permits and planning policy near protected heritage: the Ġgantija buffer zone, Fort Chambray and UNESCO's request for height controls around Valletta. Indicative until a report tests the permits and policies.
Shared emissions figures Shared data
Strong		 CC-026 CC-031 CC-109 CC-114 Finished checks that rest on the same Eurostat emissions figure, verified to agree by the fact-ledger build (sketch/fact-ledger): Malta's 2024 territorial total (CC-026, CC-031), road transport +39.4% since 2005 (CC-031, CC-109), air transport 444 to 4,730 kt (CC-026, CC-114).
Net-zero Gozo Shared target
Strong		 CC-031 CC-092 CC-107 Pledges that Gozo will be climate neutral or net zero: the Government's 'first climate-neutral region' (CC-031), the PN's net-zero Gozo by 2040 (CC-107) and the afforestation it lists (CC-092). None states a Gozo inventory or boundary; the 2023 Energy Baseline Scenario for Gozo is the only Gozo-specific baseline found.
Renewables delivery Shared target
Weak (indicative)		 CC-024 CC-029 CC-119 CC-124 Claims about how much of Malta's energy is renewable and when more will arrive: the 2030 renewables target (CC-024), the first offshore wind farm (CC-029) and the Council's July 2026 statement that the share is 17.2% and almost all solar (CC-119). Indicative until a report tests the figures against Eurostat generation data.
EU findings of unmet obligations Shared mechanism
Weak (indicative)		 CC-101 CC-117 CC-128 CC-129 Commission documents record Malta missing an EU environmental obligation: water-permit controls (CC-101), recycling targets (CC-117), the river basin plan timetable (CC-128) and the update of the air pollution control programme (CC-129). Indicative until a report tests what each finding rests on and whether it has since been closed.
Energy supply security Shared target
Weak (indicative)		 CC-023 CC-027 CC-028 CC-126 Claims about whether Malta's power and gas supply is secure and on time: the second interconnector (CC-023), the July 2026 power cuts (CC-027), Enemalta's investment ahead of demand (CC-028) and the Opposition's claim on the BP gas contract and the missing gas pipeline (CC-126). Indicative until a report tests them.
Farmland and farming pressure Shared driver
Weak (indicative)		 CC-019 CC-058 CC-059 CC-127 CC-130 Claims about the land Malta farms and what presses on it: land lost (CC-019), farmland in use (CC-058), subsidies as a share of output (CC-059), the share farmed organically (CC-127) and the proposed commercial use of ODZ land (CC-130). Indicative until a report tests the figures against NSO, Eurostat and Planning Authority data.

Pattern tags

A pattern tag names a recurring way a claim can mislead. It describes the statement, not the speaker, and it is provisional until the claim's report is finished. Claims with the same tag are listed together on each claim page.

Selective metric
A favourable metric is cited while the regulator-relevant metric looks worse. CC-002 CC-003 CC-004 CC-009 CC-025 CC-026 CC-079 CC-114
Input-as-outcome
Effort counted (trees planted, kilograms separated) is presented as if it were the result (trees surviving, recycling rate). CC-002 CC-004 CC-010 CC-014 CC-034 CC-045
Compliance-not-health
Meeting a legal limit is presented as if it meant a health-protective level. CC-005 CC-007 CC-020
Conditional-turned-unconditional
A statement with a stated condition is reported or repeated without it. CC-001 CC-006 CC-016
Promise-without-baseline
A target or pledge with no stated starting point, scope or counting basis. CC-008 CC-010 CC-011 CC-012 CC-017 CC-021 CC-029 CC-030 CC-031 CC-039 CC-055 CC-079 CC-092 CC-107 CC-108 CC-125

Indirect connections

Two claims that are not linked directly may both be linked to a third. Following the links one step further shows claims two steps away; one more step gives claims three steps away. These are worked out by the site build, not chosen by the editors: for each claim it lists the shortest routes through the links, up to three routes for each claim it reaches.

Each route is shown as the themes it passes through. For example, a claim about sealed soil and a claim about traffic emissions can meet through a third claim that belongs to both themes. 91 claims have at least one connection two steps away.

The further a connection goes, the looser it is. At two steps it shows where one theme meets another; at three it says more about how the themes fit together than about either claim.

Where themes meet

A claim that belongs to two themes joins them. These claims are the bridges that indirect connections pass through, and good places to start reading across topics.

Who said it

Every claim is matched to the body or person who made it, using a register of bodies and people (data/bodies.csv). The register records each body's kind (government, agency, regulator, oversight body, party, NGO or union, business, media, EU or research body) and the office a person spoke for, with the role named in the source. A claim made by a minister counts for the minister and for their ministry.

Two bodies are linked when they are named in the same claim, or when their claims share a theme. A link means their claims are worth reading together. It does not mean the bodies agree, disagree or act together.

Each body has a page listing its claims, the topics and pattern tags they carry, and the bodies they link to. These pages are a record, not a score. Claims are picked because they are public and can be checked, not to sample anyone's statements fairly. A body with more claims has been checked more often, which says nothing about how accurate it is. No person is rated, and a body's checks are only summarised, as set out below. See Who said it.

If a claim is matched to the wrong body, please report it.

How a body's checks are summarised

Each body's card on Who said it, and the top of its page, sums up the verdicts on the claims made by the body, its offices and the people who spoke for it. What is shown depends on how many of those claims have a verdict (pledge labels are not verdicts and are never counted here):

  • Five or more checked claims: a verdict bar. One segment per verdict, as long as the number of checks that ended in it. Counts are shown, never percentages.
  • Three or four: a tentative balance. Until there are enough checks for a bar, a marker shows where the checks so far sit on a line from Contradicted to Supported, with dots counting the checks towards five. It is marked as tentative, and it is work in progress, not a rating.
  • Fewer than three: the number of checks only, as too few to summarise.

How the balance is worked out. Each verdict is placed on the line: Contradicted 0, Misleading 0.25, Not substantiated 0.5, Largely supported 0.75, Supported 1. The balance is the average of these, with more recent claims counting more: a claim's weight halves for every two years between it and the body's most recent checked claim. Age is measured from the date the claim was made, not the date it was checked, because the balance is about what was said, when. A claim with no recorded date counts as three years older than the body's oldest dated checked claim; if none of the checked claims is dated, they all count the same. So the balance moves only when claims or verdicts change, never by itself with the passing of time.

Draft verdicts are counted, as they are shown on the claim pages, marked as drafts. A body with few checks can change a great deal with one new check; that is why there is no bar below five.

Pledges keep their own labels (on track, off track, not measurable and so on; how pledges are labelled), shown on every card that has them and never mixed into the verdicts. A pledge belongs to the body that made it, or whose office or person made it. On Pledges, election by election, each election cycle is a disk (the election and the legislature after it), with campaign pledges on the outer ring and commitments made in office inside; pledges on the same topic sit at the same place on every disk, and lines join pledges from different cycles that share wording, a subtopic or a topic, coloured by the average verdict on the facts behind them. A line says the pledges are worth reading together, not that one replaced the other.

The summary is computed when the site is built, from the same claim records as every other view (site/_lib/who.js).

What a connection does not mean

  • It is not evidence. Each claim is checked on its own sources; a link to a contradicted claim does not weaken another claim, and a link to a supported one does not strengthen it.
  • It is not a finding of coordination or motive. Nothing on this site says bodies acted together, or why anyone said something, unless documents show it.
  • It can change. Themes are revised as checks are finished, and indirect connections follow automatically.