Editorial & Methodology Policy

Times of Pol publishes two kinds of writing: conventional reporting on events that have happened, and forward-looking scenario analysis that examines what could happen. This page explains how we produce each, how we label speculative work, and the standards we hold ourselves to.

What "scenario analysis" means

A large share of the articles on this site are foresight pieces. They take a real trend — an arms race, an energy squeeze, a contest over semiconductors — and extend it into a plausible near-future to help readers think through consequences before they arrive. This is a long-established discipline used by governments, universities and strategy think-tanks. It is analysis, not news.

Because these pieces are written in a vivid, narrative style, we take deliberate steps to make sure no reader mistakes them for a report of confirmed events. Every scenario article carries a prominent banner at the top, above the text, stating clearly that the piece is speculative, that named officials, dates and figures are illustrative, and that it does not describe events that have actually occurred.

How we build a scenario

• We start from documented, verifiable trends drawn from public reporting, official statistics and the historical record.
• We identify the plausible pathways a situation could follow, and choose one to explore in depth rather than presenting it as a prediction.
• We keep the underlying dynamics realistic — geography, economics, alliances and institutions behave as they do in the real world.
• We treat specific names, quotations, dates and numbers within a scenario as illustrative devices, not as claims of fact.

How we label speculative content

Clarity of labelling is a core commitment. Scenario pieces are marked in three ways: a coloured banner directly beneath the headline, an explicit note that the content is hypothetical, and a link back to this policy. We would rather over-communicate the speculative nature of a piece than leave any room for confusion.

Corrections and standards

When we make a factual error — including in the real-world trends that underpin a scenario — we correct it promptly and openly. We do not accept payment to shape editorial content, and advertising is kept clearly separate from what we write. Our loyalty is to our readers and to intellectual honesty about the difference between what is known and what is imagined.

Our journalists

Our scenario analysis and reporting are produced by a named editorial team. You can read about the people behind the work on our journalists page, and reach us any time through our contact page.