How We Research Big Technologies
Our source hierarchy, editorial rules and the distinctions we draw between fact, allegation and unresolved matters.
Source hierarchy
Primary sources
- Companies House filings and records
- Court material and court-related disclosures
- Regulatory disclosures (RNS, FCA National Storage Mechanism)
- Annual reports and audited accounts
Secondary sources
- Reuters-style financial reporting
- National and financial newspapers
- Professional publications
Editorial rules
- Distinguish allegation from fact at all times.
- Link to original records wherever possible.
- Preserve dates and the identity of whoever made a statement.
- Include meaningful denials and responses.
- Update ongoing cases as new information becomes available.
- Avoid anonymous allegations without corroboration.
- Do not manufacture quotations.
- Do not rely on AI summaries as authoritative evidence.
Claim classification
Every adverse statement is classified internally as one of: established fact, company disclosure, audited financial information, court proceeding, allegation by Big Technologies, allegation by a claimant, statement by Sara Murray, media report, settlement, opinion/analysis, or ongoing/unresolved. These categories are never blurred.
Disclaimer
Big Technologies Files is an independent research and public-record publication. It is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or operated by Big Technologies plc, Buddi Limited or any person discussed on this website. Where allegations remain disputed or have not been determined by a court, they are expressly identified as allegations and attributed to their source. Publication of an allegation on this website should not be interpreted as an independent finding that the allegation is true. Readers should consult the original source documents linked throughout the website.
We do not claim that sourcing eliminates legal risk, that everything here is legally protected, or that third-party attribution removes liability. We operate an evidence-first editorial methodology.