First-hand account
A contributor describes an event, conversation, decision or workplace experience they directly experienced.
Research phase ยท Sources and first-hand accounts are being reviewedOpen the Research Centre
How evidence is assessed
Testimony is evidence. Verification is a process.
A workplace experience does not become meaningless because it was never written down. At the same time, the project must avoid treating every account as automatically proven.
Search the research archive
28 results
Evidence categories
Different forms, assessed in context.
Direct witness account
A contributor describes something they personally observed involving another employee.
Contemporary record
A note, message, email, calendar entry or other record created close to the event.
Supporting document
Material that supports part of an account, even if it does not establish every detail.
Independent corroboration
Another contributor independently reports materially similar information.
Pattern evidence
Multiple independent accounts reveal a recurring theme across locations, roles or time periods.
Public-source evidence
Official publications, company statements, reputable journalism, legal records or archived websites.
Company response
Information provided by MECCA or another relevant party in response to a claim or theme.
Status labels
Precise language matters.
First-hand testimony
Direct personal experience.
Directly witnessed
The contributor personally observed the event.
Supported by records
Records support part of the account.
Independently corroborated
A separate source supports a material element.
Pattern identified
Similar information has been independently received across multiple accounts.
Partially corroborated
Some significant details are supported while others remain unconfirmed.
Disputed
A relevant party has provided conflicting information.
Unverified
There is not enough information to support the claim.
Unable to determine
The evidence does not allow a responsible conclusion.
Verified factual element
A specific detail is supported through reliable documentation, independent sources or both.
Never describe an entire person as verified. Verification labels apply only to specific claims or factual elements.
Assessment process
From receipt to publication decision.
Receive
The contributor shares an account and chooses how they may be contacted.
Record consent
Research, follow-up, interview and publication are separate decisions.
Establish direct knowledge
Identify whether the person experienced, witnessed or heard about the event.
Clarify context
Record broad dates, location, role, period and circumstances.
Identify themes
Code the account by relevant areas of inquiry.
Review supporting information
Review relevant records where available.
Compare independent accounts
Assess similar experiences across locations, roles and periods.
Examine contradictions
Document conflicting information and alternative explanations.
Seek response
Offer relevant parties a fair opportunity to respond.
Make a publication decision
Publish only where consent, public interest, safety, fairness and standards support it.
Pattern thresholds
When does a theme become a pattern?
The project does not rely on a rigid number. It considers independence, geographic spread, roles, seniority, periods, similarity, records, witnesses, contradictions and alternative explanations.
Ten vague accounts may be less persuasive than three detailed, independent accounts supported by records.
Limitations
Limits of testimony-based research
Memory, interpretation, incomplete information and time can affect testimony. Contributors are self-selecting, so their experiences cannot be treated as representative of the entire workforce.
Where the available evidence is insufficient, the project will say so.