✕ Narrative Framing [8/10]: The headline uses a human-interest narrative to draw attention, focusing on the survivor’s agency in convicting her abuser while highlighting systemic failure. This frames the story around justice and institutional limits rather than sensationalism.

"The exchange student who helped convict her abuser – and why ACC can't help her"

✕ Framing by Emphasis [7/10]: The lead emphasizes the personal cost and bureaucratic barrier (ACC requiring return to NZ), immediately establishing stakes and moral tension without exaggeration.

"Now, she’s nearly $11,000 out of pocket for the therapy she has needed to survive the aftermath, and ACC says it can’t help her unless she comes back to New Zealand."

✕ Loaded Language [3/10]: Use of emotionally resonant but accurate terms like 'sexually abused' and descriptions of trauma are consistent with survivor testimony and not exaggerated for effect.

"Greg Van der Lee began sexually abusing her. It was Santjer’s first sexual experience, and the abuse continued until she returned to Germany."

✕ Appeal to Emotion [4/10]: Direct quotes from the survivor describing flashbacks and emotional collapse are included to convey lived experience, not to manipulate. They are relevant and contextualized.

"Where I heard Greg’s voice, where I felt like him breathing on my skin, where I felt him touching me again. It stayed with me like a ghost haunting you. I couldn’t sleep anymore."

✓ Balanced Reporting [9/10]: ACC’s position is presented factually through its quoted requirement for a face-to-face assessment, without editorial dismissal, allowing readers to assess institutional constraints.

"To do this, we are required to arrange a stand-alone assessment. This assessment must be completed face-to-face, which means you would need to travel to New Zealand at your own cost."

✓ Proper Attribution [9/10]: Key claims are directly attributed to the survivor or supported by shared documentation, such as emails and ACC correspondence.

"In emails shared with Stuff, she listed more than a dozen therapists and services she contacted."

✓ Comprehensive Sourcing [8/10]: The article includes the survivor’s voice, ACC’s official response, and contextual details about German support systems, offering multiple relevant perspectives.

"A German fund for survivors also turned her down because the offending took place in another country."

✕ Omission [5/10]: No attempt is made to include the abuser’s perspective or legal defense, which is appropriate given the conviction and sensitivity, but slightly limits procedural balance.

✕ Cherry-Picking [2/10]: No evidence of selective omission of facts that would undermine the narrative; timeline, legal outcome, and support system failures are clearly laid out.

✕ Misleading Context [3/10]: ACC’s requirement for in-person assessment is presented in full context — not framed as malice but as policy, with recognition of the financial burden it imposes.

"ACC responded that before any financial assistance could be considered, it would first need to decide whether the claim was accepted and, if so, for which diagnosis."

✓ Comprehensive Sourcing [9/10]: The article explains why neither German nor New Zealand systems currently cover her — geographic jurisdiction limits — providing structural context beyond individual hardship.

"I ticked all the boxes except the offence didn’t happen in Germany, so I wasn’t qualified for it."