Editorial standards

Every story cites at least two independent sources, listed at the bottom of the article with working links. We prefer primary documents: filings, court records, agency data, study PDFs, official statements, price lists, and spec sheets. A news outlet repeating a claim is not a primary source for that claim.

We do not publish a specific number, date, quote, or statistic that cannot be traced to a named source in the article's source list.

No story goes live until it has passed a structural check (sources, key takeaways, a plain-language summary, and topic tags all present) and been read and approved by an editor. That approval is recorded with the article and is a condition of publication, not a formality.

Forecasts, analyst estimates, and company claims are labeled as such. We never present a prediction or a vendor's marketing figure with the same certainty as confirmed data.

Every story is attributed to a named reporter with a persistent profile page describing their beat, background, and sourcing rules. We do not publish under a generic staff byline.

Our reporters do not accept free products, travel, or payment in exchange for coverage, and they do not hold positions in the companies they cover.

When we get something wrong, we fix it in the article, add a dated note to the article's correction log, and mark the story as corrected. Corrections are never silent. Every correction on the site is also listed on our public corrections page.

To request a correction, contact the newsroom with the article URL and the specific claim in question.

Our health reporting separates what is established from what is preliminary. We name the study, journal, or institution behind every health claim, including sample size and whether a finding has been replicated. Nothing on this site is medical advice, and our reporters are not physicians.