Scores by kind of claim
Each kind of claim is scored on its own, out of 100: the share that held up, with the range it likely falls in. Fewer resolved claims give a wider range.
-
Factual claims
Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
84 73 93 -
Predictions
Statements about events outside the person's control, checked once they fell due: did they come true?
46 27 65 -
Promises
Commitments to the person's or organisation's own future action, with something to deliver: was it delivered?
60 40 79
All types combined: 70 (likely 61 to 78, medium confidence), from 29 claims: 16 factual claims, 7 predictions, 6 promises. It mixes kinds of claim in different proportions for different people, so compare people kind by kind.
Ørsted's claims
46 claims
“In order to achieve a fair pricing of our shares and corporate bonds, we seek to ensure a high level of openness and stability in our financial communication.”
DONG Energy, annual report 2017 DONG Energy Annual report 2016 Summary (DONG Energy)
In order to achieve a fair pricing of our shares and corporate bonds, we seek to ensure a high level of openness and stability in our…
Not checkable An opinion, value judgement or statement with nothing to check.
Cite this claim
Ørsted, “In order to achieve a fair pricing of our shares and corporate bonds, we seek to ensure a high level of openness and stability in our…” (said 2017). Verdict: not checkable. Reliability API, claim c_dd58d81dd385, method 0.1.0+7831dd9d. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_dd58d81dd385
Claims without a verdict
Is a verdict here wrong, or do you speak for Ørsted? Reply on the claim's own page, with the form at its foot (how replies work). Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts and scores are made.