SOURCING METHODOLOGY

ORDN.OSINT uses adversarial cross-referencing to provide the most complete and unbiased intelligence picture possible. Every data point is checked against multiple source perspectives — what the US reports about itself, what Iran reports about the US, what independent trackers observe, and how non-aligned and Eastern media frame the same events.

When sources agree, confidence is high. When they diverge, we show the range and explain why — whether the difference is a scope definition (e.g., Pentagon counting only manned shootdowns vs OSINT counting all aircraft), propaganda inflation, or genuinely contested information. Click any stat's (i) button for full source provenance.

Sources are rated using the NATO OSINT reliability scale (A-F reliability, 1-5 confidence). No single source is treated as ground truth. All information is UNCLASSIFIED // OSINT.

Official US, Israeli, and allied government sources plus established Western defense press. These provide the baseline for US/coalition operations data. Bias: may underreport own losses, overstate adversary damage.

Major international outlets not aligned with either side. Al Jazeera, Indian media, Asian press. Provides independent framing. Bias: editorial perspectives vary but not state-directed.

OSINT aggregators, human rights NGOs, academic institutions, and conflict trackers. Often the most granular data. Bias: methodology varies, may lack access to classified information.

Russian and Chinese state media. Amplifies adversary narratives and US/Israeli losses. Useful for understanding how the conflict is framed to non-Western audiences. Bias: state-directed editorial line.

Iranian state media, IRGC statements, and affiliated outlets. Primary source for Iranian government claims. Bias: propaganda function, systematically underreports own losses and overstates enemy damage.