Editorial standards

Show the work. Label the relationship.

These rules apply to protocols, findings, tools, sponsorship, affiliate recommendations, and corrections.

Originality and sourcing

Publisher-created analysis must add independent value. Facts that are not common knowledge receive a source near the claim. We prefer primary documentation, original datasets, and direct records. A source is not cited unless it was actually reviewed.

Evidence labels

We distinguish observation, calculation, interpretation, hypothesis, and sponsored claim. Proposed methods are not results. Descriptive differences are not causal effects. A benchmark derived from our own fieldwork is not called an industry norm without evidence supporting that scope.

Human responsibility and AI assistance

The owner-editor is responsible for every published page. Software may assist with outlining, language review, code, transcription, or data checks, but automatically generated copy is not published without human review. Tools may not fabricate sources, quotes, authors, dates, respondents, findings, or first-hand experience.

Conflicts and commercial content

A material relationship is disclosed where a reader encounters the relevant content—not hidden only in a global policy. Sponsored content is labeled before engagement. Sponsors may not suppress valid unfavorable findings or approve independent conclusions. Paid promotional material must not outweigh publisher-created content.

Corrections

Material factual, analytical, or methodological corrections are dated and described. Quiet spelling or formatting repairs may be made without a formal note. We do not delete a valid correction history to make old work look cleaner.

Review cadence

High-risk or time-sensitive claims are checked before publication and at material updates. Evergreen protocols receive a scheduled review at least annually or sooner when standards, laws, or underlying evidence change.