Quality Standards
How Brandmine selects, scores, and verifies founder stories for publication
How we decide which founder stories to write—and which to skip
The Problem: Good Research Doesn’t Guarantee Good Stories
After three weeks researching Walk of Shame—a Moscow streetwear brand that survived Western sanctions—we had three story possibilities:
- Founder’s fashion journalism career (insider access angle)
- Instagram discovery by Opening Ceremony (social media disruption angle)
- Turning sanctions into competitive advantage (geopolitical resilience angle)
All three are true. All three are interesting. But only one deserves immediate publication.
The wrong choice wastes research. The right choice creates impact.
Most content teams rely on intuition—which story feels strongest, which angle the writer prefers, which narrative seems easiest to write. This produces inconsistent quality and missed opportunities.
Brandmine uses quantified selection: score every possibility, write the best story first.
The 5-Dimension Scoring System
Every story possibility is scored across five dimensions, each weighted equally:
Dimension 1: Narrative Strength
What it measures: Does this story have a complete transformation arc?
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 5 | Complete arc with clear crisis, specific breakthrough, and earned triumph |
| 4 | Strong arc with one element slightly weak |
| 3 | Solid story but missing one key phase or lacking specificity |
| 2 | Interesting facts without clear transformation |
| 1 | Data points, no narrative shape |
Key question: Can the reader feel the journey from setup through crisis to triumph?
Dimension 2: Uniqueness
What it measures: Has this story been told before? Does it offer contrarian insight?
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 5 | Never told before; challenges conventional assumptions |
| 4 | Fresh angle on known story; new perspective |
| 3 | Familiar theme with specific new details |
| 2 | Similar to existing content but not identical |
| 1 | Essentially the same as widely available narratives |
Key question: Will readers learn something they couldn’t find elsewhere?
Dimension 3: Research Completeness
What it measures: Is this story ready to write now, or does it need more investigation?
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 5 | Timeline complete (15+ events), all facts verified, sources documented |
| 4 | Core timeline solid (10-15 events), minor gaps that don’t affect narrative |
| 3 | Timeline incomplete (8-10 events), some verification needed |
| 2 | Significant gaps requiring substantial additional research |
| 1 | Conceptual story only; major research still required |
Key question: Can we write this with confidence in the facts?
Dimension 4: Universal Lesson
What it measures: Does this story teach something applicable to other founders?
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 5 | Lesson is immediately obvious and broadly applicable |
| 4 | Strong lesson requiring minimal extraction |
| 3 | Lesson present but requires interpretation |
| 2 | Lesson unclear or very narrowly applicable |
| 1 | No generalizable insight visible |
Key question: What does this story prove for founders facing similar situations?
Dimension 5: Strategic Fit
What it measures: Does this story align with Brandmine’s focus and audience?
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 5 | Perfect alignment: Global South, founder-led, underserved by existing platforms |
| 4 | Strong alignment with minor peripheral elements |
| 3 | Relevant but not core focus |
| 2 | Tangential to Brandmine mission |
| 1 | Off-strategy; should be told elsewhere |
Key question: Is this story distinctly Brandmine, or could anyone tell it?
Scoring in Practice
Example: Walk of Shame Story Options
After research, three story possibilities emerged:
Story A: “When Sanctions Became Strategy: Russian Fashion’s Defiant Pivot”
- Narrative: 5 (complete arc, geopolitical crisis, clear breakthrough)
- Uniqueness: 5 (sanctions as catalyst for competitive advantage rarely documented)
- Research: 4 (some supply chain details proprietary)
- Lesson: 5 (cultural authenticity transcends political barriers)
- Fit: 5 (Global South, founder-led, geopolitical complexity)
Decision: Write Immediately
Story B: “Instagram Bypassed Fashion Gatekeepers: How Opening Ceremony Found Moscow Street Culture”
- Narrative: 4 (strong breakthrough story, setup less dramatic)
- Uniqueness: 5 (sight-unseen collection purchase unprecedented)
- Research: 5 (fully documented through industry sources)
- Lesson: 4 (social media disruption well-covered, but angle fresh)
- Fit: 5 (perfect Brandmine focus)
Decision: Write Next
Story C: “From L’Officiel Editor to Founder: When Industry Access Reveals Market Gaps”
- Narrative: 3 (career transition interesting but crisis unclear)
- Uniqueness: 3 (editor-to-founder stories common in fashion)
- Research: 5 (well documented)
- Lesson: 3 (insider advantage widely understood)
- Fit: 4 (relevant but not distinctive)
Decision: Backlog
Decision: Story A (24/25) gets written first. Story B (23/25) enters the pipeline. Story C (18/25) documented but deprioritized.
Decision Thresholds
23-25 Points: Write Immediately
Assign to current production cycle. These are exceptional stories that meet all quality criteria at the highest level.
20-22 Points: Write Next
Queue for near-term production. Strong stories that will be scheduled as soon as current cycle completes.
17-19 Points: Backlog
Document for future consideration. Good stories that may be written when capacity allows or strategic needs change.
14-16 Points: Conditional
Write only if strategic gap exists. Stories that fill specific content needs but don’t meet general quality thresholds.
Below 14 Points: Archive
Document but don’t plan to produce. Keep record of research but deprioritize indefinitely.
These thresholds ensure resources flow to the strongest stories while maintaining a content pipeline for consistent output.
Verification Standards
Scoring is only meaningful if underlying facts are accurate. We apply verification standards at three levels:
Level 1: Basic Verification (All Content)
- Founding date confirmed through business registry or official source
- Key milestones dated with at least one independent source
- Founder identity verified through multiple references
- Current status confirmed (active, acquired, closed)
Level 2: Standard Verification (Profiled Content)
All Level 1 requirements, plus:
- Timeline events verified through minimum two sources
- Financial claims sourced (revenue, funding, valuation)
- Crisis details confirmed beyond single founder account
- Breakthrough mechanism documented with evidence
Level 3: Deep Verification (Featured Content)
All Level 1 and 2 requirements, plus:
- Primary source contact (founder or team interview, when possible)
- Counter-narrative check (did anyone dispute the story?)
- Cultural context verification (local expert or publication confirms significance)
- Timeline completeness (15+ events, all 6 phases represented)
Source Credibility Hierarchy
Not all sources carry equal weight:
High Credibility
Business registries, financial filings, founder interviews
Use for: Primary verification
Medium-High Credibility
Industry publications, major business press
Use for: Context and validation
Medium Credibility
Regional media, trade publications
Use for: Local detail
Medium-Low Credibility
Company materials, promotional content
Use for: Claims requiring verification
Low Credibility
Social media, unattributed articles
Use for: Background only, never primary
Stories proceeding to publication require at least 70% of key claims verified through High or Medium-High credibility sources.
The Crisis Verification Challenge
Crisis moments are hardest to verify—and most valuable to document.
Challenge: Founders may minimize embarrassing moments. Press may never have covered them. Company materials actively avoid them.
Our approach:
Interview Depth
Crisis moments surface in longer conversations, not quick quotes
Industry Triangulation
Competitors and partners sometimes reference each other's struggles
Financial Record Analysis
Sharp revenue drops or restructuring often indicate crisis
Timeline Gaps
Missing years in otherwise detailed timelines may signal undocumented difficulty
A crisis claim from a single founder interview can proceed if:
- The claim is internally consistent with the timeline
- Financial or structural evidence supports difficulty during that period
- The narrative logic is coherent (crisis explains subsequent breakthrough)
We note sourcing limitations transparently when crisis documentation is thin.
What Disqualifies a Story
Some stories fail quality standards regardless of score:
Automatic Disqualification
- Unverifiable core claims: The central narrative cannot be confirmed
- Legal or ethical concerns: Story involves ongoing litigation or harm
- Promotional capture: Narrative is indistinguishable from marketing
- Missing crisis: No genuine difficulty visible in timeline
- Geographic mismatch: Not Global South focus, despite interesting story
Conditional Rejection
- Thin research: Strong story but insufficient verification (revisit later)
- Timing issues: Story depends on future events (wait for resolution)
- Source access: Key information available only through sources we cannot reach (flag for later)
Quality Review Process
Before publication, every story passes through quality review:
Review Checklist
1Factual Accuracy
- All dates verified through registry or official source
- Financial claims sourced (or noted as unverified)
- Timeline internally consistent
- No known contradictions with public record
2Narrative Integrity
- Story arc complete (all phases present or explained)
- Crisis is genuine (not manufactured for narrative)
- Breakthrough mechanism explained (not just “things improved”)
- Triumph connected to journey (earned, not coincidental)
3Voice Consistency
- Discovery tone throughout (revealing, not selling)
- Specific details (not vague generalizations)
- Active voice dominant
- Confident without promotional excess
4Strategic Alignment
- Global South focus clear
- Founder-led emphasis maintained
- Differentiated from existing coverage
- Serves Brandmine audience needs
Transparency Commitments
We acknowledge limitations openly:
In-article notation (when applicable):
- “Based primarily on founder interview” (single-source crisis)
- “Financial details unverified” (claims we couldn’t confirm)
- “Translated from [language]” (non-English primary sources)
Methodology transparency (this documentation):
- Publishing our scoring system
- Explaining verification standards
- Acknowledging what we prioritize and why
Trust comes from transparency about process, not claims of perfection.
Continuous Improvement
Quality standards evolve through:
- Post-publication review: Did the story perform? Were claims challenged?
- Source expansion: New registries, publications, and contacts improve verification
- Scoring calibration: Adjusting thresholds based on content performance
- Methodology refinement: Improving processes as we learn
This documentation represents current practice. It will be updated as we improve.
Quality Standards methodology developed by Brandmine for systematic story verification and selection. First published December 2025.