Researcher and Fact Checker for YouTube

About the channel I run a fast a fast-growing analytical finance and business channel in the Patrick Boyle/Andrei Jikh vein, aimed at senior professionals navigating AI-driven disruption. Our videos pair named institutional authorities (Harvard, MIT, McKinsey, Anthropic, the Fed, Nobel economists) with contrarian frames that overturn costly, widely-held false beliefs. Every claim is welded to a specific, verifiable source. We're looking for a researcher who can feed that machine. The role You'll be the research engine behind the videos: surfacing story candidates, pressure-testing them, and assembling citation-anchored evidence packages that a script can be built on directly. This is not a writing role and not a "find some sources" role — it's a role for someone who can find the right institutional anchor, verify it cold, and hand over material that's already been checked for the way it'll get scrutinized in the comments. What you'll do Source and rank story candidates against our scoring model: authority strength, stakes, specificity, contrarian potential, and freshness. Bring us the ones that fit the formula, not a firehose. For each greenlit topic, build an evidence package: the named authority, the exact figures welded to their source, the contrarian angle, and the counterarguments a sharp viewer would raise. Verify every load-bearing statistic, quote, and claim against the primary source — the original paper, filing, letter, or transcript, not an aggregator's paraphrase. If a number is the spine of a video, you've confirmed it to the decimal and know whether it's net or gross, which index, what window. Monitor our research feeds (arXiv, NBER, MIT Sloan, Stanford HAI, HBR, HBS Working Knowledge, Anthropic, and others) and flag what's fresh and formula-fit. Find the clippable assets — the interview moment, the primary-source line, the chart — that a video can be built around. Flag the honest weaknesses: where a claim overstates the source, where an authority didn't actually say the thing, where the evidence is thinner than the frame implies. We would rather kill a fragile angle than ship it and get caught. Non-negotiable standards Never fabricate a source, statistic, or quote. Ever. A single invented citation is disqualifying. Never let a claim drift past what its source actually supports. "The framework implies" is not "the author said." Distinguish what's confirmed from what's inferred, and label which is which. Copyright-clean: paraphrase, don't lift; short attributed quotes only. You're a fit if you Read primary sources for a living or for pleasure — academic papers, SEC filings, fund letters, economic data — and enjoy it. Are constitutionally skeptical: your instinct on a surprising stat is to check it, not repeat it. Have enough finance/economics literacy to know when a number is being framed misleadingly (survivorship, base rates, gross-vs-net, cherry-picked windows). Write tersely and factually. No filler, no hype register. Can work asynchronously and hand over material that needs no rework. Nice to have Familiarity with YouTube research tooling (VidIQ or similar). Background in finance, consulting, journalism, academic research, or equity/credit analysis. Comfort with lightweight research automation (RSS pipelines, scripting) — we already run some and would welcome someone who can extend it.