Direct answer
The Financial Source Verification Explorer helps a reader identify which primary authority, provider, filing system or official document is most appropriate for verifying a financial claim. The tool is educational. It organizes information, exposes relationships, or performs deterministic logic from the inputs shown on the page. It does not recommend an investment, predict an outcome, or substitute for individualized financial, tax, legal, or regulatory advice.
The problem this tool solves
A common research failure is citing a source that is reputable but not authoritative for the exact statement. A tax rule, index methodology, company filing fact, exchange mechanic and economic data series each have different source owners. The explorer routes the claim type to the correct source class and verifies organization identity and approved domains.
What you enter or select
Select a claim category:
- public-company financial statement or event;
- federal investment tax or retirement rule;
- broker-dealer rule/resource;
- monetary policy or Federal Reserve data;
- derivatives/futures regulation;
- index methodology/constituents;
- exchange trading rule;
- options clearing/contract mechanics;
- Treasury security/rate;
- CPI/employment data;
- GDP/national accounts;
- fund objective/fees/risks;
- issuer-specific product information.
Optional: paste a source URL to check whether the hostname matches the selected authority/provider identity.
The interface should explain each input next to the control. If an input is optional, say what happens when it is omitted. If the tool uses a registry or external data source, show the source and freshness metadata separately from user-entered information.
What the tool returns
Return:
- recommended primary source entity;
- approved domains;
- what that source can establish;
- what it cannot establish;
- current verification link;
- source type;
- jurisdiction/scope;
- freshness guidance;
- related Swoopr methodology page.
If a pasted URL belongs to a different provider than the label, return a visible mismatch warning.
Results should be grouped into observed/selected facts, Swoopr-calculated or matched output, and next educational steps. A result label must never look like a personalized recommendation. If the tool cannot resolve the inputs confidently, it should return an explicit “needs review” or “insufficient information” state.
Methodology
Use an internal Authority Registry:
entity_id, canonical_name, aliases, type, approved_domains, jurisdiction, scopes, canonical_url
Routing is deterministic by claim category.
Hostname validation compares the normalized registrable domain and approved subdomains against the selected source entity. Redirects should be followed server-side and the final hostname validated.
Never validate a claim as true simply because the domain is approved. The tool validates source identity and routing, not the factual content of the page.
The methodology must be visible from the tool page and available without opening a modal that requires JavaScript. Deterministic rules should be documented in plain English and, where helpful, as readable pseudocode. Data-driven outputs should include the registry revision or data timestamp used.
Worked examples
Claim: current IRA distribution rule. The explorer routes to the IRS retirement-plan resources and reminds the reader to verify tax year/effective date.
Claim: current S&P 500 Value methodology. It routes to S&P Dow Jones Indices, not MSCI.
Claim: reported company revenue. It routes to SEC/EDGAR and issuer filings, while explaining that Swoopr’s interpretation is separate from the reported number.
Pasted link mismatch: a link labeled S&P Dow Jones Indices that ultimately resolves to msci.com is flagged as an organization mismatch.
Examples should use hypothetical or clearly educational inputs unless the tool is explicitly designed to read public, current source data. Examples are demonstrations of method, not suggested actions.
Accessibility requirements
The tool must be usable with keyboard, screen reader, zoom, high contrast and reduced motion.
Every form control needs:
- a persistent programmatic label;
- units where relevant;
- inline help that does not depend on hover;
- errors associated with the field;
- a clear reset path.
Results must be announced appropriately without forcing focus unexpectedly. If the tool uses cards, a graph, chips or color-coded categories, the same information must be available in text. Do not use color as the only indicator of category, severity or status.
The tool should remain understandable if charts fail to load. Tables should use real table semantics. Controls that behave like buttons must be real buttons.
Privacy and data handling
Prefer browser-local computation for this tool when practical. Do not request account credentials, passwords, private keys, seed phrases, brokerage tokens or other secrets.
If a backend lookup is required, transmit only the information necessary for that lookup. Do not persist user inputs unless the product explicitly provides a save function and explains the storage behavior.
Limitations
An approved domain can host many pages, not all of which establish the selected claim. Government and provider sites can move URLs. The tool cannot determine that a source’s substantive interpretation is correct merely from its hostname. Human review remains necessary.
A useful limitation statement explains what the tool does not know. Avoid generic disclaimers that hide the actual uncertainty.
Interlinking plan
Link to Primary Financial Sources & Authorities, Research Methodology, Citation & Sources Policy, Knowledge Graph Methodology, SEC/Investor.gov, IRS, FINRA, Federal Reserve, CFTC and index-provider entities.
Each internal link should represent a typed relationship: EXPLAINS, IMPLEMENTS, REQUIRES_KNOWLEDGE_OF, SUPPORTED_BY, COMPARES_WITH, NEXT_TOPIC, or another documented predicate. Do not create a block of loosely related links for SEO.
Structured data and graph identity
Create one stable PublicTool entity ID and one page resource.
The page should be ABOUT the tool. The tool should connect to every concept it implements or explains. If a methodology page exists, use EXPLAINED_BY or the equivalent Swoopr predicate.
Do not expose backend function names as separate public tools.
QA and validation
Before release, test:
- empty and incomplete input;
- boundary cases;
- invalid combinations;
- keyboard-only operation;
- screen-reader labels and live-region behavior;
- browser zoom at 200% and 400%;
- no-JavaScript fallback content;
- deterministic repeatability;
- registry/data-source freshness;
- internal-link resolution.
Automated tests should compare known fixtures with expected output. Any rules stored in code and copy must be generated from one source or validated against each other so the methodology cannot drift from the implementation.
Design deep dive 1: Claim taxonomy
The routing accuracy depends on how claims are classified. A current IRA rule, an index methodology and a company revenue number are all financial facts but belong to different primary sources.
Implementation exercise: Build a reviewed taxonomy of claim types and unit-test every branch.
Release check: A claim with no reviewed route should return 'needs review' instead of an authority guess.
This design note belongs in the public methodology because it explains how the tool avoids a specific failure mode. The interface copy can be shorter, but the underlying behavior should remain testable. Where the behavior depends on registry data, include the registry revision in the diagnostic output so a stale configuration can be distinguished from a logic defect.
Design deep dive 2: Redirect-aware hostname checks
Official sites move pages. Follow redirects server-side before validating the final registrable domain. Preserve the originally requested URL and final URL in the result.
Implementation exercise: Test known same-organization redirects and a deliberately wrong cross-provider redirect.
Release check: A domain match establishes organization identity only, not substantive support for the claim.
This design note belongs in the public methodology because it explains how the tool avoids a specific failure mode. The interface copy can be shorter, but the underlying behavior should remain testable. Where the behavior depends on registry data, include the registry revision in the diagnostic output so a stale configuration can be distinguished from a logic defect.
Design deep dive 3: Approved-domain governance
Authority domains should live in one registry with code review. Do not hard-code provider strings into many components.
Implementation exercise: Add a test that fails when an authority has no canonical URL or approved domain.
Release check: Registry changes should be auditable because they can affect many citations.
This design note belongs in the public methodology because it explains how the tool avoids a specific failure mode. The interface copy can be shorter, but the underlying behavior should remain testable. Where the behavior depends on registry data, include the registry revision in the diagnostic output so a stale configuration can be distinguished from a logic defect.
Design deep dive 4: Source versus distributor
A data distributor can host a series produced by another agency. The tool should distinguish the producer, distributor and the page actually cited.
Implementation exercise: Use FRED/BLS or similar fixtures to show how the two roles can coexist.
Release check: The result should identify which entity establishes the definition and which serves the data.
This design note belongs in the public methodology because it explains how the tool avoids a specific failure mode. The interface copy can be shorter, but the underlying behavior should remain testable. Where the behavior depends on registry data, include the registry revision in the diagnostic output so a stale configuration can be distinguished from a logic defect.
Design deep dive 5: Evidence note
Allow the user to copy a compact citation note containing source organization, page title, URL and verification date. Do not present the note as a legal citation format.
Implementation exercise: Test the note with government, provider and issuer sources.
Release check: The copied note should make later research review easier.
This design note belongs in the public methodology because it explains how the tool avoids a specific failure mode. The interface copy can be shorter, but the underlying behavior should remain testable. Where the behavior depends on registry data, include the registry revision in the diagnostic output so a stale configuration can be distinguished from a logic defect.
Additional test scenario: Source versus distributor
Create a fixture that deliberately violates one assumption of the tool, run it through the core logic, and record the expected safe failure state. The user-facing result should explain what could not be resolved without inventing missing information. The diagnostic output should identify the input category, registry revision and rule that caused the stop.
Then repeat the fixture with the missing information supplied from a reviewed registry entry. The result should become deterministic without changing any unrelated output. This paired test demonstrates that the tool is driven by explicit evidence rather than hidden scoring or broad text generation.
Document the scenario in the component test suite and link the relevant methodology section from the test name. That keeps implementation, public explanation and QA synchronized.
Additional test scenario: Claim taxonomy
Create a fixture that deliberately violates one assumption of the tool, run it through the core logic, and record the expected safe failure state. The user-facing result should explain what could not be resolved without inventing missing information. The diagnostic output should identify the input category, registry revision and rule that caused the stop.
Then repeat the fixture with the missing information supplied from a reviewed registry entry. The result should become deterministic without changing any unrelated output. This paired test demonstrates that the tool is driven by explicit evidence rather than hidden scoring or broad text generation.
Document the scenario in the component test suite and link the relevant methodology section from the test name. That keeps implementation, public explanation and QA synchronized.
Additional test scenario: Redirect-aware hostname checks
Create a fixture that deliberately violates one assumption of the tool, run it through the core logic, and record the expected safe failure state. The user-facing result should explain what could not be resolved without inventing missing information. The diagnostic output should identify the input category, registry revision and rule that caused the stop.
Then repeat the fixture with the missing information supplied from a reviewed registry entry. The result should become deterministic without changing any unrelated output. This paired test demonstrates that the tool is driven by explicit evidence rather than hidden scoring or broad text generation.
Document the scenario in the component test suite and link the relevant methodology section from the test name. That keeps implementation, public explanation and QA synchronized.
Additional test scenario: Source versus distributor
Create a fixture that deliberately violates one assumption of the tool, run it through the core logic, and record the expected safe failure state. The user-facing result should explain what could not be resolved without inventing missing information. The diagnostic output should identify the input category, registry revision and rule that caused the stop.
Then repeat the fixture with the missing information supplied from a reviewed registry entry. The result should become deterministic without changing any unrelated output. This paired test demonstrates that the tool is driven by explicit evidence rather than hidden scoring or broad text generation.
Document the scenario in the component test suite and link the relevant methodology section from the test name. That keeps implementation, public explanation and QA synchronized.
Additional test scenario: Claim taxonomy
Create a fixture that deliberately violates one assumption of the tool, run it through the core logic, and record the expected safe failure state. The user-facing result should explain what could not be resolved without inventing missing information. The diagnostic output should identify the input category, registry revision and rule that caused the stop.
Then repeat the fixture with the missing information supplied from a reviewed registry entry. The result should become deterministic without changing any unrelated output. This paired test demonstrates that the tool is driven by explicit evidence rather than hidden scoring or broad text generation.
Document the scenario in the component test suite and link the relevant methodology section from the test name. That keeps implementation, public explanation and QA synchronized.
Additional test scenario: Redirect-aware hostname checks
Create a fixture that deliberately violates one assumption of the tool, run it through the core logic, and record the expected safe failure state. The user-facing result should explain what could not be resolved without inventing missing information. The diagnostic output should identify the input category, registry revision and rule that caused the stop.
Then repeat the fixture with the missing information supplied from a reviewed registry entry. The result should become deterministic without changing any unrelated output. This paired test demonstrates that the tool is driven by explicit evidence rather than hidden scoring or broad text generation.
Document the scenario in the component test suite and link the relevant methodology section from the test name. That keeps implementation, public explanation and QA synchronized.
Additional test scenario: Source versus distributor
Create a fixture that deliberately violates one assumption of the tool, run it through the core logic, and record the expected safe failure state. The user-facing result should explain what could not be resolved without inventing missing information. The diagnostic output should identify the input category, registry revision and rule that caused the stop.
Then repeat the fixture with the missing information supplied from a reviewed registry entry. The result should become deterministic without changing any unrelated output. This paired test demonstrates that the tool is driven by explicit evidence rather than hidden scoring or broad text generation.
Document the scenario in the component test suite and link the relevant methodology section from the test name. That keeps implementation, public explanation and QA synchronized.
Additional test scenario: Claim taxonomy
Create a fixture that deliberately violates one assumption of the tool, run it through the core logic, and record the expected safe failure state. The user-facing result should explain what could not be resolved without inventing missing information. The diagnostic output should identify the input category, registry revision and rule that caused the stop.
Then repeat the fixture with the missing information supplied from a reviewed registry entry. The result should become deterministic without changing any unrelated output. This paired test demonstrates that the tool is driven by explicit evidence rather than hidden scoring or broad text generation.
Document the scenario in the component test suite and link the relevant methodology section from the test name. That keeps implementation, public explanation and QA synchronized.
Additional test scenario: Redirect-aware hostname checks
Create a fixture that deliberately violates one assumption of the tool, run it through the core logic, and record the expected safe failure state. The user-facing result should explain what could not be resolved without inventing missing information. The diagnostic output should identify the input category, registry revision and rule that caused the stop.
Then repeat the fixture with the missing information supplied from a reviewed registry entry. The result should become deterministic without changing any unrelated output. This paired test demonstrates that the tool is driven by explicit evidence rather than hidden scoring or broad text generation.
Document the scenario in the component test suite and link the relevant methodology section from the test name. That keeps implementation, public explanation and QA synchronized.
Additional test scenario: Source versus distributor
Create a fixture that deliberately violates one assumption of the tool, run it through the core logic, and record the expected safe failure state. The user-facing result should explain what could not be resolved without inventing missing information. The diagnostic output should identify the input category, registry revision and rule that caused the stop.
Then repeat the fixture with the missing information supplied from a reviewed registry entry. The result should become deterministic without changing any unrelated output. This paired test demonstrates that the tool is driven by explicit evidence rather than hidden scoring or broad text generation.
Document the scenario in the component test suite and link the relevant methodology section from the test name. That keeps implementation, public explanation and QA synchronized.
Additional test scenario: Claim taxonomy
Create a fixture that deliberately violates one assumption of the tool, run it through the core logic, and record the expected safe failure state. The user-facing result should explain what could not be resolved without inventing missing information. The diagnostic output should identify the input category, registry revision and rule that caused the stop.
Then repeat the fixture with the missing information supplied from a reviewed registry entry. The result should become deterministic without changing any unrelated output. This paired test demonstrates that the tool is driven by explicit evidence rather than hidden scoring or broad text generation.
Document the scenario in the component test suite and link the relevant methodology section from the test name. That keeps implementation, public explanation and QA synchronized.
Additional test scenario: Redirect-aware hostname checks
Create a fixture that deliberately violates one assumption of the tool, run it through the core logic, and record the expected safe failure state. The user-facing result should explain what could not be resolved without inventing missing information. The diagnostic output should identify the input category, registry revision and rule that caused the stop.
Then repeat the fixture with the missing information supplied from a reviewed registry entry. The result should become deterministic without changing any unrelated output. This paired test demonstrates that the tool is driven by explicit evidence rather than hidden scoring or broad text generation.
Document the scenario in the component test suite and link the relevant methodology section from the test name. That keeps implementation, public explanation and QA synchronized.