Reading a value shift
How this site tells confirmation from correction from betrayal when a party changes course, using a narrow test of whether the party had an honest mandate and warned its voters first.
When a party changes course, this site sorts it into one of three kinds and says so plainly.
A confirmation is a party doing what it said it would. A correction is a party changing its mind in the open. It takes the new line to a congress or an election first, and tells voters before it acts. A betrayal is a reversal with neither. No mandate, no warning, and a clean break with a value the party had made central.
The test is deliberately narrow. Two questions settle most cases. Did the party have an honest mandate, meaning a congress decision or an election it had actually run on? And were voters told before the change, not after? A move can be unpopular, even wrong on the merits, and still read as a correction if both answers are yes. The label is about how a party turned, not whether the turn was right.
Two things this method will not do. It will not rank parties against each other. Counting reversals would only reward whichever party we happened to document least. And it will not hand down a verdict you cannot check. Every claim on a linked story carries an external source, and where there is a judgment, it sits inside the prose where you can weigh it for yourself.
The frame is ordinary democratic theory. An election can carry a mandate, and parties answer for the promises they run on.