low sportsVERIFIED
Khawaja declines to confirm if Australia's bowlers were aware of sandpaper plot
Verified: 2 outlets in 2 countries have reported this story since Nov 11.
📍 Australia, AU·🕐 5h ago·2 outlets
How sure are we
✓ Verified · 2 outlets
Two or more outlets reported this story and its reliability score reached 65%, so WorldPulse marks it verified. That means more than one outlet says so, not that it is proven true.
Who reported it
The story so far · 2 reports · · 2 countries✓ Verified Nov 11, 9:25 AM UTC
- Nov 11, 4:03 AM UTCFirst report· you’re reading thisKhawaja declines to confirm if Australia's bowlers were aware of sandpaper plotchannelnewsasia.com ↗
- Nov 11, 9:25 AM UTC+5 hEx-cricketer Usman Khawaja declines to confirm if Australia's bowlers were aware of 2018 ball-tampering plotdawn.com ↗
- Verified: a second independent outlet reported itNov 11, 9:25 AM UTC · +5 h
Location
Verification Log1
cross checkconfirmed90%
[Claude] Report 2 covers the same Khawaja interview about whether bowlers knew of the 2018 sandpaper plot, with no conflicting facts.
22m agoPowered by WorldPulse Verification Engine
Reliability
Reliability ScoreVery high
90%Independent outlets2
Statusverified
AI checknone yet
Community flags0
Score bands
Very high80–100%
A highly rated outlet, or several independent outletsHigh60–79%
One well-rated outlet so farModerate40–59%
A lower-rated or state-run outlet, or one report of something seriousLow20–39%
A low-rated outlet on a serious or sensitive storyVery low0–19%
Treat it as unconfirmedWhat moves the score
◎
Outlet ratingThe outlet’s rating in WorldPulse’s list of sources starts the score
⇄
Independent outletsEach further outlet that reports the story closes 40% of the gap to 98%
±
Report detailsA few points either way: a summary and a place add a little; state-run outlets on conflict, politics or security, and single reports marked high or critical, lose some
Not in the score: AI checks and reader flags. Verified is separate: two or more independent outlets and a score of at least 65%.
Very high · How we score this
Risk Score
low risk