Methods and accountability

Editorial policy

Readers should be able to distinguish what is known, what is calculated, and what remains judgment. These standards govern the research prepared for this site.

Updated 2026-09-27

Put it to work

Review one page before relying on it

Find the evidence cutoff, author, reviewer, and stated interests. If any are missing, treat the page as incomplete.
Open the source behind the claim that matters to your decision. Check the figure, units, and period.
Use the checklist below to record your checks. An unresolved material issue means the content stays on hold.

Evidence comes before conclusions

Facts need resolving source references and relevant dates. Calculations need a method and assumptions. Estimates and scenarios must be labeled. Editorial judgments need reasoning, including what evidence would weaken the conclusion.

Headlines must not imply live data, guaranteed results, or stronger evidence than the article provides. Missing information is disclosed rather than invented.

What review means

Your review checklist

For your own review. Checking these boxes does not approve or publish content. Checks reset on refresh.

The material claim matches the linked primary source and exact passage. The reporting period, units, currency, and accounting basis match. I reproduced the calculation and checked its assumptions and exclusions. I checked developments since the evidence cutoff or retained a clear historical label. The author, reviewer, review date, and relevant interests are identified. Material discrepancies are resolved; corrections reach all affected examples and conclusions.

Before publication, a named responsible author and reviewer must check important claims against sources, reconcile material discrepancies, verify units and periods, inspect calculations, and check that the conclusion follows from the evidence.

The review must also cover material developments since the evidence cutoff, relevant interests, limitations, links, and visible review dates. A software-validation pass alone cannot authorize publication.

Draft: work in progress; not approved for public research routes.
Reviewed: complete editorial record, held for publication.
Published: approved content with a publication date and explicit indexing choice.
Retired: removed from current coverage; not silently republished.

AI assistance and accountability

AI can assist research organization, drafting, coding, and checks. Its output must be verified against the cited evidence. AI assistance does not create a human reviewer, professional credential, or completed editorial sign-off.

If one person performs both author and reviewer roles, that arrangement must be stated honestly. It must not be described as an independent review.

Interests and commercial relationships

Authors and reviewers must disclose relevant holdings, compensation, affiliate arrangements, sponsorships, and other material interests on affected content. Do not infer that no conflict exists merely because none has been supplied.

Commercial relationships must not determine factual conclusions or remove material risks. No payment or affiliate link may be presented as independent editorial evidence.

Freshness and corrections

Evidence dates, preparation dates, and last-reviewed dates are different. A historical edition can remain useful if its cutoff is prominent; it must not be relabeled current without a new review.

Material errors require a visible correction and reassessment of affected conclusions. Unresolved errors can require holding or withdrawing the affected content.

Corrections process →Source policy →