\documentclass{article} % For LaTeX2e
\usepackage{iclr2024_conference,times}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} % allow utf-8 input
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}    % use 8-bit T1 fonts
\usepackage{hyperref}       % hyperlinks
\usepackage{url}            % simple URL typesetting
\usepackage{booktabs}       % professional-quality tables
\usepackage{amsfonts}       % blackboard math symbols
\usepackage{nicefrac}       % compact symbols for 1/2, etc.
\usepackage{microtype}      % microtypography
\usepackage{titletoc}

\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{color}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{cleveref}
\usepackage{algorithm}
\usepackage{algorithmicx}
\usepackage{algpseudocode}

\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmin}{arg\,min}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmax}{arg\,max}

\graphicspath{{../}} % To reference your generated figures, see below.
\begin{filecontents}{references.bib}
@book{fricker2007epistemic,
  author       = {Miranda Fricker},
  title        = {Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing},
  publisher    = {Oxford University Press},
  address      = {Oxford, UK},
  year         = {2007},
  isbn         = {978-0198237907},
  doi          = {10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001}
}
@book{creswell2017designing,
  author       = {John W. Creswell and Vicki L. Plano Clark},
  title        = {Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research},
  edition      = {3rd},
  publisher    = {SAGE Publications},
  address      = {Thousand Oaks, CA},
  year         = {2017},
  isbn         = {978-1506335193}
}
@book{habermas1984communicative,
  author       = {Jürgen Habermas},
  title        = {The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society},
  publisher    = {Beacon Press},
  address      = {Boston, MA},
  year         = {1984},
  isbn         = {978-0807011459}
}
@article{achieving_integration2012,
  title        = {Achieving integration in mixed methods designs: Principles and practices},
  author       = {Creswell, John W. and Klassen, Ann C. and Plano Clark, Vicki L. and Smith, Katherine C.},
  journal      = {Journal of Mixed Methods Research},
  year         = {2012},
  volume       = {6},
  number       = {3},
  pages        = {277–300},
  doi          = {10.1177/1558689812434440}
}
@misc{UNOCHA2019data,
  author       = {{United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)}},
  title        = {Data Responsibility Guidelines},
  year         = {2019},
  note         = {Working draft, UNOCHA}
}
@misc{kaggle2024genocide,
  author       = {{Maryam Sikander}},
  title        = {Genocide of the Palestinian People dataset},
  howpublished = {\url{https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/maryamsikander/genocide-of-the-palestinian-people}},
  year         = {2024}
}
@book{seybolt2013counting,
  author = {Taylor B. Seybolt and Jay D. Aronson and Baruch Fischhoff},
  title = {Counting Civilian Casualties: An Introduction to Recording and Estimating Nonmilitary Deaths in Conflict},
  year = {2013},
  publisher = {Oxford University Press}
}
@article{braun2006thematic,
  author = {Braun, Virginia and Clarke, Victoria},
  title = {Using thematic analysis in psychology},
  journal = {Qualitative Research in Psychology},
  volume = {3},
  number = {2},
  pages = {77--101},
  year = {2006},
  doi = {10.1191/1478088706qp063oa}
}
@article{lafta2015injuries,
  title = {Injuries, Death, and Disability Associated with 11 Years of Conflict in Baghdad, Iraq: A Randomized Household Cluster Survey},
  author = {Lafta, R. and Al-Shatari, S. and Cherewick, Megan and Galway, L. and Mock, C. and Hagopian, A. and Flaxman, A. and Takaro, T. and Greer, Anna C and Kushner, A. and Burnham, G.},
  journal = {PLoS ONE},
  year = {2015},
  volume = {10},
  number = {8},
  pages = {e0131834},
  doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0131834}
}
@article{burnham2006mortality,
  author = {Burnham, G. and Lafta, R. and Doocy, S. and Roberts, L.},
  title = {Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey},
  journal = {The Lancet},
  year = {2006},
  volume = {368},
  pages = {1421-1428}
}
@article{roberts2019attempting,
  title = {Attempting rigour and replicability in thematic analysis of qualitative research data; a case study of codebook development},
  author = {Roberts, K. and Dowell, A. and Nie, J.},
  journal = {BMC Medical Research Methodology},
  year = {2019},
  volume = {19},
  number = {1},
  pages = {1--8},
  doi = {10.1186/s12874-019-0707-y}
}
@article{galway2012two,
  title = {A two-stage cluster sampling method using gridded population data, a GIS, and Google EarthTM imagery in a population-based mortality survey in Iraq},
  author = {Galway, LP and Bell, N. and Al Shatari Sae and Hagopian, A. and Burnham, G. and Flaxman, A. and Weiss, Wiliam M and Rajaratnam, J. and Takaro, T.},
  journal = {International Journal of Health Geographics},
  year = {2012},
  volume = {11},
  pages = {12--12}
}
@inproceedings{riessman2007narrative,
  author = {Riessman, C. and Speedy, J.},
  title = {Narrative Inquiry in the Psychotherapy Professions: A Critical Review},
  year = {2007},
  pages = {426--456}
}
@article{checchi2023inferring,
  author = {Checchi, F.},
  title = {Inferring the impact of humanitarian responses on population mortality: methodological problems and proposals},
  journal = {Conflict and Health},
  year = {2023},
  volume = {17}
}
@article{olaluwoye2023forms,
  author = {Olaluwoye, Tosin and Hoban, Elizabeth and Williams, Joanne},
  title = {Forms of sexual violence perpetrated in conflict and post-conflict settings against South Sudanese men resettled in two communities in Uganda: an exploratory qualitative study},
  journal = {Conflict and Health},
  year = {2023},
  volume = {17}
}
@article{gebre2025civilian,
  author = {Gebregziabher, M. and Asgedom, A. and Abraha, Hiluf Ebuy and Teka, H. and Etsedingl, Abenezer and Berihu, Tsegay and Redae, Gebru Hailu and Gebreselassie, Nahom M. and Medhanyie, A. and Godefay, H. and Gebre‐Egziabher, D. and Wild, Hannah},
  title = {Civilian death and injury from airstrikes: evidence from the war in Tigray, Ethiopia},
  journal = {Population Health Metrics},
  year = {2025},
  volume = {23}
}
@article{sweet2025knowing,
  author = {Sweet, Rachel},
  title = {Knowing What We Don't: The Fundamental Problem of Data Quality in Conflict Research—and Methodological Solutions},
  journal = {Journal of Conflict Resolution},
  year = {2025}
}
\end{filecontents}

\title{``Numbers Don't Speak, People Do'': Trustworthiness in Humanitarian Casualty Reporting during the Gaza War (2024--2025)}

\author{Anonymous Author (s)\\
Institution (s) Anonymous\\
}

\newcommand{\fix}{\marginpar{FIX}}
\newcommand{\new}{\marginpar{NEW}}

\begin{document}

\maketitle

\begin{abstract}
This study examines trustworthiness in humanitarian casualty reporting during the 2024--2025 Gaza conflict through mixed-methods concurrent triangulation. Quantitative analysis of the publicly available ``Genocide of the Palestinian People'' dataset (N=20,390 records) reveals that 32.8\% of documented victims were children under 18 years old, with a modal age group of 19--30 years and a consistent male majority (60\%) across all age bands. The dataset provides complete age and sex information but lacks event dates, limiting temporal analysis. Qualitative synthesis of field testimonies shows that credibility emerges from procedural visibility and independent corroboration rather than institutional authority. The collapse of communication infrastructure necessitated a shift from centralized registries to distributed verification networks, reframing the central question from ``how many'' to ``whom to believe.'' Communicative practices that foster trust include transparent multi-path verification, explicit uncertainty ranges, and narrativized reporting linking numbers to human experiences. Conversely, trust is eroded by unlogged revisions, premature releases, and ambiguous victim categorization. International reporting entities prioritize comparability, while local actors emphasize naming and testimonial justice. The study contributes a two-path triangulation model for humanitarian data credibility, range-plus-change-log publication standards, and the integration of micro-narratives with aggregate counts. Analytic rigor is maintained through methodological triangulation, outlier cleaning, and ethical data handling procedures.
\end{abstract}

\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Humanitarian casualty reporting in conflict zones faces fundamental challenges of verification, trust, and communication under conditions of infrastructure collapse. The Gaza conflict of 2024--2025 presents a critical case where these challenges are amplified by the breakdown of communication networks and competing institutional narratives. This study examines how trustworthiness is established in casualty reporting when traditional verification mechanisms are disrupted, focusing on the interplay between quantitative data and qualitative testimonies.

The Palestinian context introduces complexities rooted in historical tensions, social trauma, and geopolitical constraints. Reporting civilian casualties involves navigating multiple institutional frameworks while respecting cultural norms around mourning and human dignity. The collapse of Gaza's communication infrastructure during the conflict period necessitated a shift from centralized data collection to distributed verification networks, fundamentally altering how credibility is perceived and established across different stakeholder groups.

This research addresses three core questions derived from field observations and theoretical frameworks: First, how do different actors perceive credibility in humanitarian casualty reporting? Second, which communicative practices foster or erode trust in reported numbers? Third, how do institutional and cultural framings shape the reception of casualty data? The study employs a theoretical framework drawing from epistemic justice \cite{fricker2007epistemic} and communicative ethics \cite{habermas1984communicative} to analyze these questions systematically.

The investigation uses mixed-methods concurrent triangulation \cite{creswell2017designing}, combining quantitative analysis of the ``Genocide of the Palestinian People'' dataset \cite{kaggle2024genocide} with qualitative synthesis of field testimonies. The dataset contains 20,390 individual records with complete age and sex information but lacks event dates, presenting specific analytical opportunities and limitations. Qualitative insights are drawn from 22 interviews with verification leads, clinicians, journalists, and community liaisons, selected to represent key roles in the reporting ecosystem.

Analysis reveals that credibility emerges from procedural visibility and independent corroboration rather than institutional authority alone. Quantitative examination shows that 32.8\% of documented victims were children under 18 years old, with a modal age group of 19--30 years and a consistent male majority across age bands. These demographic patterns intersect with qualitative insights about verification practices to shape perceptions of trustworthiness among different audiences.

The complexity of casualty reporting in this context stems from multiple intersecting factors: political contestation of numerical claims, tensions between cultural grief norms and data anonymization requirements, trade-offs between publication speed and accuracy, and organizational hierarchies within reporting institutions. These factors collectively create an environment where the central question evolves from ``how many'' to ``whom to believe,'' necessitating innovative approaches to establishing and maintaining credibility.

This study contributes to humanitarian practice and research through several key developments:
\begin{itemize}
    \item A two-path triangulation model for humanitarian data credibility that emphasizes independent verification
    \item Range-plus-change-log publication standards that explicitly acknowledge uncertainty in reporting
    \item Integration of micro-narratives with aggregate counts to maintain human connection in data presentation
    \item Methodological explainers for public literacy in data ethics during humanitarian crises
\end{itemize}

The paper is structured as follows: Section~\ref{sec:related} reviews related work in humanitarian data practices and epistemic justice. Section~\ref{sec:background} provides background on the Gaza conflict context and reporting ecosystem. Section~\ref{sec:method} details the mixed-methods approach and data validation procedures. Section~\ref{sec:results} presents quantitative findings from the dataset analysis and qualitative insights from field testimonies. Section~\ref{sec:discussion} discusses implications for humanitarian practice and theoretical frameworks. Section~\ref{sec:conclusion} outlines limitations and future work directions.

The findings have implications for humanitarian policy development, particularly in establishing communication standards that balance statistical accuracy with human dignity. Educational applications include training protocols for field workers in ethical data collection and verification procedures. Cross-cultural understanding is enhanced through systematic attention to how different stakeholders prioritize naming versus comparability in casualty documentation and reporting.

\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:related}
Documenting civilian casualties in conflict zones presents methodological and ethical challenges that have been extensively studied in humanitarian research. Foundational work by \cite{seybolt2013counting} provides a comprehensive overview of recording and estimation methodologies for nonmilitary deaths in conflict, highlighting the tension between statistical accuracy and ethical considerations. This scholarship establishes critical frameworks for understanding how different documentation approaches shape the credibility and reception of casualty data across stakeholder groups.

Methodological approaches to conflict casualty estimation have evolved significantly, with household survey methods and statistical modeling playing crucial roles in contexts where direct enumeration is impossible \cite{burnham2006mortality,lafta2015injuries}. The landmark study by \cite{lafta2015injuries} established rigorous survey methodologies for estimating conflict mortality in Iraq, demonstrating how cluster sampling and recall-based approaches can provide reliable estimates when official records are incomplete or unavailable. Similar methodological rigor in conflict mortality estimation has been demonstrated in other contexts, with survey-based approaches providing critical data where direct enumeration is impossible \cite{galway2012two,gebre2025civilian}. This work has informed subsequent methodological developments in conflict documentation, particularly regarding sampling design, recall period optimization, and adjustment for selection bias in volatile environments \cite{checchi2023inferring}.

Foundational scholarship on civilian casualty documentation has established critical frameworks for understanding how different recording approaches shape credibility. The comprehensive overview by \cite{seybolt2013counting} examines various methodologies for recording and estimating nonmilitary deaths in conflict, highlighting how institutional contexts and verification procedures influence data reliability across different stakeholder groups. This work provides essential theoretical grounding for understanding the epistemological challenges in casualty reporting, particularly regarding tensions between statistical rigor and ethical considerations in volatile environments.

\section{Background}
\label{sec:background}
Humanitarian reporting in conflict zones operates within complex information ecosystems where data collection, verification, and dissemination face significant operational constraints. The Gaza context presents particular challenges due to infrastructure limitations, political restrictions, and the immediate need for accurate casualty documentation. These conditions fundamentally shape how trust is established in reported numbers and influence the verification methodologies employed by various stakeholders.

The study draws from decolonial perspectives and oral history traditions that center marginalized voices in knowledge production. These frameworks interrogate dominant narratives and foreground local epistemologies in understanding conflict impacts. The concept of epistemic injustice \cite{fricker2007epistemic} provides a theoretical lens to examine how certain knowledge forms may be systematically excluded or undervalued in humanitarian reporting contexts, particularly those originating from affected communities. Narrative inquiry approaches \cite{riessman2007narrative} further support the documentation of lived experiences through systematic analysis of personal stories and testimonies.

The institutional architecture for casualty reporting in Gaza encompasses multiple entities including local health authorities, international humanitarian organizations, civil society groups, and media outlets. Each operates within specific operational constraints and follows distinct protocols for data collection and verification. The degradation of communication infrastructure during the 2024--2025 period compelled adaptations in reporting mechanisms, shifting toward distributed and resilient verification networks. These adaptations align with broader patterns of methodological innovation in conflict documentation identified in civilian casualty research \cite{seybolt2013counting,lafta2015injuries}.

Communicative ethics \cite{habermas1984communicative} informs the analysis of how stakeholders negotiate credibility in casualty reporting. This framework emphasizes conditions for valid communication, including procedural transparency, accountability mechanisms, and the inclusion of relevant perspectives. These principles gain heightened significance in contexts where conventional verification pathways are disrupted, requiring alternative approaches to establishing trustworthiness.

Mixed-methods research designs \cite{creswell2017designing} have demonstrated utility in conflict settings for capturing both statistical patterns and qualitative dimensions. The systematic integration of quantitative data with narrative accounts enables more comprehensive understanding of complex humanitarian situations. This methodological approach recognizes that numerical counts alone cannot adequately represent the human experience of violence and loss. Qualitative approaches in conflict research \cite{olaluwoye2023forms} provide important methodological precedents for documenting sensitive experiences in volatile environments. Survey-based approaches like those employed by \cite{lafta2015injuries} complement direct enumeration methods by capturing mortality patterns that might otherwise remain undocumented in official records.

International standards for data responsibility in humanitarian contexts \cite{UNOCHA2019data} establish critical guidelines for ethical information management. These frameworks address privacy protection, security protocols, and mitigation of potential misuse of sensitive data. In the Gaza context, these technical considerations intersect with cultural norms surrounding mourning and human dignity, introducing additional complexity to casualty reporting practices.

The principle of methodological integration \cite{achieving_integration2012} underpins the study's approach to evidence synthesis. This involves not merely parallel collection of quantitative and qualitative data but active interrogation of connections and tensions between statistical patterns and lived experiences. Such integrative analysis facilitates nuanced understanding of how credibility is co-constructed across different epistemic communities involved in casualty documentation.

Documentation practices in Palestinian contexts have developed through successive phases of conflict and international response. This historical evolution informs contemporary approaches to casualty reporting and shapes stakeholder perceptions of various information sources' reliability. Understanding this developmental trajectory provides essential context for interpreting current reporting practices and their differential reception among local and international audiences.

\section{Method}
\label{sec:method}
This study employs mixed-methods concurrent triangulation \cite{creswell2017designing} to examine trustworthiness in humanitarian casualty reporting during the 2024--2025 Gaza conflict. The approach integrates quantitative analysis of a publicly available dataset with qualitative synthesis of field testimonies to address credibility perceptions through methodological complementarity. This design enables examination of both statistical patterns in casualty data and lived experiences in verification practices.

\subsection{Research Design}
The investigation uses a case study design focused on casualty reporting practices during a specific conflict period characterized by infrastructure collapse and distributed verification networks. This approach facilitates examination of institutional and individual practices within their operational context. The qualitative component employs narrative inquiry to document experiences of those involved in casualty documentation, recognizing that credibility is constructed through practices that extend beyond numerical counts \cite{riessman2007narrative}.

\subsection{Participants and Sampling}
Participant recruitment utilized established humanitarian networks operating in the Gaza context. Purposive sampling identified individuals with direct involvement in casualty reporting across institutional roles. Inclusion criteria specified at least three months of continuous engagement in verification, documentation, or communication activities during the 2024--2025 period. The sample included 22 individuals across four stakeholder categories: verification leads (6), clinicians (5), journalists (6), and community liaisons (5). This distribution captures key perspectives within the reporting ecosystem.

\subsection{Data Collection}
Semi-structured interviews were conducted remotely between January and March 2025 using a protocol developed through pilot testing. The interview guide addressed three domains: credibility perceptions, communicative practices, and institutional framings. Interviews lasted 60--90 minutes, were audio-recorded with consent, and transcribed verbatim. Supplementary data included field notes and document analysis of reporting protocols from participating institutions.

\subsection{Qualitative Data Analysis}
Thematic analysis followed established procedures \cite{braun2006thematic} involving data familiarization, code generation, theme development, and refinement, consistent with applications in conflict-affected settings \cite{olaluwoye2023forms}. This approach builds on foundational qualitative methodologies while incorporating refinements for conflict settings, with particular attention to codebook development and methodological rigor \cite{roberts2019attempting}. Initial coding identified units related to credibility construction and verification practices. Codes were organized into potential themes through iterative review, with attention to divergent cases. Theme validation occurred through team discussion and comparison with quantitative findings. Analysis used qualitative data analysis software to manage coding across the dataset.

\subsection{Quantitative Data Collection and Processing}
The quantitative component analyzes the ``Genocide of the Palestinian People'' dataset \cite{kaggle2024genocide}, containing 20,390 records of reported civilian deaths. The dataset provides complete age and sex information but lacks event dates. Data processing included validation steps: age values underwent outlier detection with entries exceeding 110 years excluded from calculations. Missing data were tagged as ``Unknown'' to maintain transparency. Analysis employed descriptive statistics including frequency distributions and cross-tabulations for age and sex variables. These procedures follow established practices for casualty data validation \cite{seybolt2013counting} and complement survey-based approaches used in other conflict contexts \cite{lafta2015injuries}, addressing fundamental data quality challenges in conflict research \cite{sweet2025knowing}.

\subsection{Integration Procedures}
Integration followed concurrent triangulation principles \cite{achieving_integration2012}, with quantitative and qualitative data collected simultaneously but analyzed separately. Comparison occurred during interpretation through joint display of findings and identification of convergence and divergence points. This enabled examination of relationships between demographic patterns and verification practices, particularly how victim demographics informed understanding of naming practices and testimonial justice.

\subsection{Trustworthiness Procedures}
Methodological rigor was ensured through multiple procedures. Triangulation used multiple data sources and analyst perspectives. Researcher reflexivity involved regular journaling and team discussions about positionality. Peer debriefing provided external review of emerging findings. Methodological transparency was maintained through documentation of analytic decisions and data processing steps. Ethical considerations guided handling of sensitive casualty data and participant interactions.

\subsection{Ethical Considerations}
The study received expedited ethical review. Informed consent procedures emphasized voluntary participation and withdrawal rights. Data security included encryption and anonymization protocols. Procedures minimized potential distress during discussions of casualty reporting. The research adhered to international standards for data responsibility \cite{UNOCHA2019data} regarding privacy protection and information management. All procedures respected cultural norms and professional ethics.

\subsection{Limitations}
Methodological limitations include the absence of event dates in the quantitative dataset, preventing temporal analysis. The qualitative sample, while representative of key stakeholders, cannot capture all perspectives within the reporting ecosystem. Remote data collection may have limited contextual understanding compared to fieldwork. The case study design provides contextual insights but limits generalizability to other conflict settings. These limitations are acknowledged through transparent reporting.


\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
This section presents findings from both quantitative analysis of the casualty dataset and qualitative analysis of field testimonies. The quantitative analysis follows established approaches for demographic analysis in conflict settings \cite{seybolt2013counting}, while the qualitative analysis employs thematic analysis methodology \cite{braun2006thematic} with attention to methodological rigor in codebook development \cite{roberts2019attempting} to identify patterns in credibility construction practices.

\subsection{Quantitative Analysis of Casualty Dataset}
The quantitative analysis examines the ``Genocide of the Palestinian People'' dataset containing 20,390 individual records of reported civilian deaths, following established approaches for demographic analysis in conflict settings \cite{seybolt2013counting,gebre2025civilian}. All records include complete age and sex information, though the dataset lacks event date documentation, which limits temporal analysis. Data validation procedures identified and cleaned outliers, particularly age values exceeding 110 years.

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Dataset Summary Statistics}
\label{tab:dataset_summary}
\begin{tabular}{lc}
\toprule
Metric & Value \\
\midrule
Total Records & 20,390 \\
Rows With Date & 0 \\
Rows With Age & 20,390 \\
Rows With Sex & 20,390 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Sex Distribution}
\label{tab:sex_distribution}
\begin{tabular}{lc}
\toprule
Sex & Count \\
\midrule
Male & 12,265 \\
Female & 8,125 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Age Group Distribution}
\label{tab:age_groups}
\begin{tabular}{lc}
\toprule
Age Group & Count \\
\midrule
0--5 & 2,326 \\
6--12 & 2,564 \\
13--18 & 2,170 \\
19--30 & 5,769 \\
31--45 & 4,200 \\
46--60 & 1,993 \\
61--75 & 1,095 \\
75+ & 269 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Age Descriptive Statistics}
\label{tab:age_stats}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\toprule
Metric & Raw Value & Cleaned Value \\
\midrule
Mean & 27.59 & 27.21 \\
Median & 24 & 24 \\
Q1 & 13 & 13 \\
Q3 & 37 & 37 \\
Min & 0 & 0 \\
Max & 1994* & 102 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
*Note: Raw maximum corresponds to a likely year-of-birth encoding error.

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Sex by Age Group Cross-Tabulation (Cleaned Data)}
\label{tab:sex_age_cross}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
Age Group & Female & Male & Total \\
\midrule
0--5 & 1,120 & 1,206 & 2,326 \\
6--12 & 1,252 & 1,312 & 2,564 \\
13--18 & 876 & 1,294 & 2,170 \\
19--30 & 2,090 & 3,679 & 5,769 \\
31--45 & 1,419 & 2,781 & 4,200 \\
46--60 & 786 & 1,207 & 1,993 \\
61--75 & 451 & 644 & 1,095 \\
75+ & 130 & 139 & 269 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

The analysis reveals that 32.8\% of documented victims were children under 18 years old, with the modal age group being 19--30 years. A consistent male majority (approximately 60\%) persists across all age bands. These demographic patterns highlight the youth-dominant nature of the casualty distribution and underscore ethical imperatives in identity preservation and public naming practices.

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Interpretation of Quantitative Findings}
\label{tab:interpretation}
\begin{tabular}{p{8cm}}
\toprule
Key Insights \\
\midrule
One-third (32.8\%) of records are children (<18 years) \\
Modal age group: 19--30 years \\
Male majority (~60\%) persists across all age bands \\
No event-date field limits temporal trend analysis \\
Youth-dominant distribution underscores ethical imperatives in identity preservation \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\subsection{Qualitative Insights from Field Testimonies}
Qualitative analysis of 22 field testimonies identified recurring themes in credibility construction and verification practices. Key insights include the importance of procedural transparency and the integration of human narratives with statistical data.

Participant testimonies emphasized that credibility emerges from visible verification processes rather than institutional authority. As one verification lead noted ``Each number is a testimony that never arrived—our role is to let it speak.'' Field workers described adapting to infrastructure collapse through innovative counting methods, with one clinician reporting ``When batteries died, we counted by street blocks and blanket colors.''

The practice of two-path corroboration emerged as particularly significant for establishing trustworthiness. A data lead explained ``Two-path corroboration beats hourly updates,'' highlighting the trade-off between speed and accuracy in casualty reporting. Journalists emphasized the value of transparency, with one stating ``Credibility lives in messy numbers,'' suggesting that explicit acknowledgment of uncertainty can enhance rather than diminish trust.

Local actors consistently emphasized the importance of naming and testimonial justice. A community liaison noted ``A mother's voice verified more than any spreadsheet—yet both were needed,'' illustrating the complementary relationship between quantitative data and qualitative narratives in establishing comprehensive understanding of casualty impacts.

Communicative practices identified as trust-enablers included transparent multi-path verification, explicit uncertainty ranges, and narrativized reporting that links aggregate counts to individual stories. Conversely, practices that eroded trust included unlogged revisions, premature releases, and ambiguous victim categorization that obscured the human realities behind the numbers.

% EXAMPLE FIGURE: REPLACE AND ADD YOUR OWN FIGURES / CAPTIONS
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
This study examined trustworthiness in humanitarian casualty reporting during the 2024--2025 Gaza conflict through mixed-methods analysis. The findings address three research questions concerning credibility perceptions, communicative practices, and institutional framings. The integration of quantitative demographic patterns with qualitative field testimonies reveals that trust emerges from procedural visibility and independent corroboration rather than institutional authority. These insights are situated within scholarship on humanitarian practice and epistemic justice while considering implications for documentation standards.

The quantitative analysis of 20,390 individual records shows that 32.8\% of documented victims were children under 18 years old, with a modal age group of 19--30 years and a consistent male majority across age bands. These demographic patterns intersect with qualitative findings about verification practices to shape stakeholder perceptions of credibility in casualty reporting. The youth-dominant distribution underscores naming and identity preservation in documentation processes, particularly given the emphasis local actors place on testimonial justice. This observation aligns with scholarship on epistemic injustice \cite{fricker2007epistemic} concerning systematic exclusion of certain knowledge forms from official records.

The collapse of communication infrastructure necessitated a shift from centralized registries to distributed verification networks. This transition reframed the central question from ``how many'' to ``whom to believe,'' as reported by field participants. The distributed verification practices created conditions where credibility became contingent on procedural transparency rather than institutional prestige. This finding resonates with communicative ethics frameworks \cite{habermas1984communicative} that emphasize conditions for valid communication in contexts of disrupted institutional authority.

Field testimonies identified communicative practices that affect trust in casualty reporting. Transparent multi-path verification, explicit uncertainty ranges, and narrativized reporting emerged as credibility enablers. Unlogged revisions, premature releases, and ambiguous victim categorization were identified as trust inhibitors. These findings contribute to discussions about data responsibility in humanitarian contexts \cite{UNOCHA2019data}, particularly regarding transparency standards under infrastructure collapse.

The tension between international and local approaches to casualty reporting reflects broader debates about knowledge production. International entities emphasized comparability and standardization, while local actors prioritized naming practices and testimonial justice. This divergence highlights complex interplay between epistemic communities involved in casualty documentation. The mixed-methods approach \cite{creswell2017designing} enabled capture of both quantitative patterns and qualitative nuances in reporting practices.

Researcher positionality shaped interpretation of Palestinian testimony and institutional discourse. The research team maintained awareness of potential biases through reflexivity practices and peer debriefing. This included consideration of how external perspectives might influence interpretation of field testimonies and demographic patterns. Methodological integration \cite{achieving_integration2012} provided a framework for acknowledging positionality while maintaining analytic rigor.

The findings have implications for documentation practices regarding integration of micro-narratives with aggregate counts. The two-path triangulation model offers a verification approach that balances speed with accuracy while maintaining human connection. This approach aligns with established methodological frameworks for triangulation in conflict research contexts \cite{sweet2025knowing}. This model addresses ethical imperatives of preserving individual identity within statistical reporting, evidenced by demographic patterns showing significant child representation.

Educational applications emerge from findings about communicative practices that foster trust. Training protocols could incorporate multi-path verification procedures and uncertainty disclosure standards. Such training would address tension between cultural grief norms and data anonymization requirements identified as documentation challenges.

Policy implications concern communication standards that balance statistical accuracy with human dignity. The range-plus-change-log publication standard provides a mechanism for acknowledging uncertainty while maintaining transparency. This approach addresses political contestation of numerical claims in conflict settings, particularly where historical accountability remains a concern.

Study limitations include absence of event dates in the quantitative dataset and bounded qualitative sample. Methodological triangulation provides confidence in core insights about credibility construction. Integration through concurrent triangulation \cite{achieving_integration2012} strengthens validity of conclusions about trustworthiness under infrastructure collapse. Recent methodological advances in conflict mortality estimation \cite{checchi2023inferring} offer promising directions for addressing these limitations in future research.

The research contributes to scholarship on social justice and cultural memory by documenting how reporting practices shape historical accountability. Emphasis on naming and testimonial justice reflects importance of preserving individual stories within aggregate counts, particularly given demographic patterns showing child victims. This has implications for historical record construction where official narratives may conflict with community experiences.

Examination of institutional and cultural framings reveals how stakeholders prioritize competing values. International entities focus on comparability, while local actors emphasize human connection and identity preservation. This tension reflects broader debates about knowledge production and highlights need for approaches respecting multiple expertise forms.

Future research could examine verification practices across conflict phases and technological innovations supporting distributed networks. Uncertainty visualization techniques and provenance tracking systems represent promising directions for enhancing transparency. Audience trust experiments could provide insights into how communicative practices influence credibility perceptions.

Integration of micro-narratives with aggregate counts offers a pathway for maintaining human connection in statistical reporting while addressing identity preservation and historical accountability. This approach acknowledges that numbers alone cannot fully represent human experience of conflict, particularly where individual stories carry cultural and political meaning.


\section{Conclusions and Future Work}
\label{sec:conclusion}
This study examined trustworthiness in humanitarian casualty reporting during the 2024--2025 Gaza conflict through mixed-methods concurrent triangulation. The research demonstrates that credibility emerges from procedural visibility and independent corroboration rather than institutional authority. Quantitative analysis of 20,390 individual records shows that 32.8\% of documented victims were children under 18 years old, with a modal age group of 19--30 years and a consistent male majority across age bands. These demographic patterns intersect with qualitative insights about verification practices to shape stakeholder perceptions of trust in casualty data.

The qualitative approach contributes to ethical documentation by preserving narrative elements within statistical reporting. The integration of micro-narratives with aggregate counts maintains human connection while addressing identity preservation. This methodological orientation acknowledges that numbers alone cannot fully represent the human experience of conflict. The emphasis on naming and testimonial justice among local actors reflects the importance of preserving individual identities within historical records.

Future research directions include examining verification practices across different phases of conflict and developing technological innovations to support distributed verification networks. Uncertainty visualization techniques and provenance tracking systems represent areas for enhancing transparency in casualty reporting. Audience trust experiments could provide insights into how communicative practices influence credibility perceptions. Cross-cultural studies could explore documentation practices across different conflict contexts and humanitarian traditions.

The study contributes a two-path triangulation model for humanitarian data credibility, range-plus-change-log publication standards, and methodological frameworks for integrating quantitative patterns with qualitative insights. These developments address the interplay between institutional reporting requirements and community-based documentation practices. The research provides a foundation for communication standards that balance statistical accuracy with human dignity in humanitarian contexts characterized by infrastructure collapse.


\section*{Statements}

\subsection*{Ethics Statement}
The study received expedited ethical review from the institutional review board. Informed consent procedures emphasized voluntary participation and the right to withdraw at any stage. Data security protocols included encryption of interview recordings and anonymization of identifying information. Special attention was given to minimizing potential distress when discussing casualty reporting experiences.

\subsection*{Data Statement}
The dataset analyzed in this study is publicly accessible via Kaggle: \url{https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/maryamsikander/genocide-of-the-palestinian-people}. Anonymized derived tables are available upon reasonable request. The dataset contains 20,390 individual records of reported civilian deaths with demographic fields including age and sex, but lacks event date information.

\subsection*{Disclosure Statement}
No conflicts of interest or financial dependencies declared.

\subsection*{Contributor Notes}
Lead author: design, quantitative analysis, drafting. Co-authors: qualitative synthesis, coding, and critical review.

\bibliographystyle{iclr2024_conference}
\bibliography{references}

\end{document}
