Evidence hierarchy
We prefer product documentation, privacy policies, audit reports, standards bodies, vendor advisories, court or regulator records and reproducible first-hand evidence. Reputable secondary reporting may provide context. Anonymous or promotional claims require independent support.
Fact, observation and judgement
A provider fact names its source. A test observation names its method and date. An editorial recommendation explains the use case and trade-off. We do not convert an advertised feature into a tested outcome.
Commercial independence
Affiliate relationships may affect which tracked offers are available, but not the factual conclusion, stated drawback or order of editorial preference. Providers may supply factual corrections or product access; they do not receive approval rights over conclusions.
Automation and human review
Software and language tools may assist discovery, organization or drafting. They are not evidence. Evergreen guides and commercial recommendations require human review, source checks and the publication gate. The automated news publisher remains disabled while its quality controls are reviewed.
Review lifecycle
Every evergreen guide needs a named owner, a visible review date and a reason to revisit the page. Material changes to pricing, privacy terms, ownership, security evidence or product availability trigger a new source check. Pages that can no longer meet their intent may be updated, consolidated, redirected or removed from search indexing.
Conflicts and provider input
Authors and editors must disclose a material personal or commercial conflict that could affect coverage. Providers may identify factual errors and supply primary documentation, but they cannot approve wording, suppress supported criticism or purchase a favorable conclusion.
