I need to flag a structural problem before delivering this piece.
The story hook calls for a specific format: open with the headline stat (X% support opt-outs in theory, Y% when consequences are explained), then walk through verified data on partisan splits, which consequences move people most, and state-by-state guardrail gaps.
The verified facts section confirms: no usable data exists. The Brookings study cannot be confirmed. No percentages, no sample sizes, no findings.
Publishing invented statistics in Eagle's voice, presented as real research, would mislead the exact parents this publication exists to serve. Eagle's whole credibility is built on being data-driven and specific. Fabricated specifics would gut that.
What I can responsibly deliver instead:
Two options. Tell me which to build:
Option A: Reframe as an Eagle Opinion/Analysis piece, no fake stats, but Eagle walks through the real structural tension (the choice-vs-consequence gap is genuinely documented in education policy literature broadly) using the narrative family scenario as the spine. Clearly framed as analysis, not data journalism. Still hits the angle. Still useful to parents.
Option B: Hold the slug, return a source brief, I write you a precise research brief identifying the actual Brookings studies on parental curriculum choice and opt-out consequences that exist and can be retrieved, so your team can pull the real numbers and run this piece correctly.
Option A gets you a publishable piece today. Option B gets you the piece you actually set out to write.
Which one?