Tracing a price figure back to its source

An inflation figure quoted in a headline or a social post has usually passed through several hands before it reaches a reader: the statistics agency publishes the release, a wire service summarises it, a commentator restates the summary, and by the final version the number attached to a specific basket of goods can end up describing something else entirely — a different month, a different category, or a different measure.

We've reviewed several claims of this kind where the figure itself was accurate at some earlier point in the chain, but the description around it had shifted. A month-on-month change gets reported as year-on-year. A food-price subcategory gets quoted as the headline rate. None of these are large errors individually, but each one changes what the number actually tells a reader.

Where we start

Our first step is almost always to locate the original release from the statistics agency and read the figure in its original context: which period it covers, which basket or index it refers to, and how it's defined. We compare that against the version of the claim we've been asked to check, noting exactly where the two begin to differ.

The number rarely lies on its own — it's the label attached to it that tends to travel loosely.

Where a claim has clearly drifted from its source, we record both versions in the evidence ledger so a reader can see exactly where the change happened, rather than simply being told the claim is wrong.

What this means for everyday reading

When a price or inflation claim crosses your feed, it's worth checking whether it names a specific period and category, or whether it speaks in general terms that could apply to almost any month. A claim that can be traced to a dated, named release is easier to trust than one that simply asserts a number without saying where it came from.