The Hergemony Research Standard
A practical standard for independent, evidence-led research across Earth, People, Politics and Capital. It governs how Hergemony gathers information, distinguishes fact from analysis, manages conflicts, handles material information and corrects the research record.
Credibility before conviction.
Hergemony should never make a conclusion appear stronger than the evidence supporting it.
Research exists to improve understanding and decision quality. Accuracy, independence, attribution, uncertainty and intellectual honesty therefore take precedence over narrative, attention, commercial interest or a desired investment outcome.
Eight standards
Integrity
Present research honestly. Do not knowingly misstate evidence, omit material contrary evidence or manipulate presentation to manufacture a preferred conclusion.
Independence & Objectivity
Research conclusions should follow evidence rather than personal holdings, commercial relationships, political preferences, publicity incentives or external pressure.
Reasonable Basis
Material conclusions require sufficient investigation and an identifiable analytical basis. Confidence should be proportional to the quality and quantity of evidence.
Source Integrity
Prefer primary sources where practicable. Attribute material facts and figures, preserve context, distinguish estimates from reported results and record the relevant date.
Fact ≠ Analysis
Separate externally verifiable facts from Hergemony interpretation, assumptions, scenarios and hypotheses. Readers should be able to tell which is which.
Conflicts & Disclosure
Disclose relevant financial interests, relationships or other conflicts that could reasonably be perceived to affect research independence.
Material Nonpublic Information
Do not trade on, publish, solicit or improperly use material nonpublic information. Information whose public status is uncertain should be treated as restricted until that status is resolved.
Research Record
Preserve original theses, assumptions and publication dates. Correct material errors transparently and review prior work without rewriting history.
Source hierarchy
Hergemony should use the strongest available source appropriate to the claim. A secondary source can identify an issue; a material investment conclusion should, where practicable, be checked against primary evidence.
| Priority | Source | Typical use | Research treatment |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Regulatory filings, audited reports, official statistics, legislation, central banks, government/regulatory records | Financials, policy, economic data, legal facts | Preferred primary evidence |
| 2 | Company earnings releases, presentations, calls and official communications | Guidance, strategy, operating data | Primary but management-originated; test against filings/results |
| 3 | Industry bodies, academic research and recognised technical institutions | Industry structure, science, methodology | Assess methods, scope and conflicts |
| 4 | High-quality journalism and established research | Context, developments, competing interpretations | Corroborate material claims where possible |
| 5 | Social media, forums, anonymous commentary | Signals and leads | Never treat unverified claims as established fact |
Label what we know.
FACT — externally verifiable information supported by a source.
ANALYSIS — Hergemony's interpretation of facts.
ASSUMPTION — an input required for analysis that is not known with certainty.
SCENARIO — a conditional outcome used to test implications; not a prediction.
THESIS — a proposition supported by evidence and subject to testing.
UNCERTAINTY — material information that is unknown, contested or difficult to estimate.
INVALIDATION — evidence that would materially weaken or overturn a thesis.
Research red lines
Do not fabricate data, sources, quotations or certainty.
Do not selectively remove contrary evidence merely because it weakens a thesis.
Do not present scenarios or estimates as observed facts.
Do not use private company information to support public-market trading.
Do not change an old thesis silently after events prove it wrong.
Do not allow an existing position to determine the research conclusion.
Do not imply institutional endorsement, regulatory status or capabilities Hergemony does not possess.
From theme to security
A compelling geopolitical, technological or social development is not itself an investment recommendation. Hergemony should trace the complete analytical chain before drawing security-level conclusions.
Research must survive disclosure.
Where Hergemony or its author has a material position in a security discussed in research, the position should be disclosed in a clear and proportionate way. The existence of a holding must not determine the analytical conclusion.
Research should be completed or updated on the basis of evidence, not written to justify an existing trade. Where a conflict cannot be managed through disclosure and analytical independence, publication or trading should be restricted.
Before Hergemony publishes
| ☐ | Can every material factual claim be traced to a credible source? |
| ☐ | Are fact, analysis, assumptions and scenarios distinguishable? |
| ☐ | Have relevant contrary facts and alternative explanations been considered? |
| ☐ | Does the conclusion have a reasonable analytical basis? |
| ☐ | Are financial figures dated and definitions consistent? |
| ☐ | Have material conflicts and holdings been disclosed? |
| ☐ | Is all information used appropriate for public research? |
| ☐ | Are uncertainty, risks and invalidation conditions stated? |
| ☐ | Does the language avoid overstating certainty or implying unsupported endorsement? |
| ☐ | Has the original research record been preserved for later review? |
Being wrong is different from being misleading.
A research thesis can be wrong even when the process was reasonable. Hergemony should evaluate the quality of the process separately from the outcome. When new evidence changes a view, publish the change and explain why.
Error
Correct material factual or calculation errors promptly and identify the correction where appropriate.
Thesis Change
Record what evidence changed the conclusion rather than silently rewriting the original publication.
Review
Compare thesis, assumptions and invalidation conditions with subsequent evidence to improve the research process.
Ethics as a research habit
This standard is designed to make ethical reasoning part of Hergemony's daily research process. It is not a substitute for the official CFA Institute Code of Ethics, Standards of Professional Conduct, curriculum or exam materials, and Hergemony does not imply CFA Institute endorsement.
| Hergemony habit | CFA study connection |
|---|---|
| Integrity and evidence before narrative | Professionalism and ethical conduct |
| Research independence | Independence and objectivity |
| Sufficient evidence for conclusions | Diligence and reasonable basis |
| Restricted treatment of private material information | Material nonpublic information and market integrity |
| Clear holdings / conflict disclosure | Conflicts of interest |
| Accurate attribution and research records | Misrepresentation, record retention and professional responsibility |
For CFA exam preparation, always use the current official CFA Institute curriculum and standards. This page is Hergemony's internal/public research-governance framework, not an authoritative statement of CFA rules.