EDITORIAL POLICY

INDEPENDENCE · EVIDENCE · DISCLOSURE

EDITORIAL POLICY / PUBLIC STANDARD

Our conclusions belong to the editorial process.

This policy explains how we protect independence, support claims, disclose conflicts, use automation responsibly, and handle vendor participation.

policy.yml● ENFORCED

paid conclusions: prohibited

material claims: sourced

conflicts: disclosed

corrections: documented

INDEPENDENCE

Payment, access, and partnerships cannot buy coverage outcomes.

Commercial teams and vendors cannot assign rankings, scores, verdicts, or language. Any material commercial relationship relevant to a page should be disclosed clearly.

SOURCING

The strength of a claim should match the strength of its evidence.

We prioritize first-party documentation, source repositories, release notes, controlled testing, reproducible results, and clearly identified neutral sources. Time-sensitive facts include verification context when material.

AI AND AUTOMATION

Automation may assist research; accountability remains human.

Automated tools may help organize material, identify questions, or draft structure. They cannot replace source verification, technical judgment, disclosure review, or final editorial responsibility.

VENDOR INPUT

Vendors may clarify facts, not negotiate supported criticism.

Factual corrections and technical context are welcome. Vendors do not receive approval rights, and refusal to participate does not exclude a relevant product.

CONFLICTS

A reader should know what might influence judgment.

Writers and reviewers should disclose material financial, employment, advisory, investment, or personal relationships relevant to the subject.