Editorial standards & corrections

Evidence and context

Articles and reports connect analysis with source records and links. Published material should distinguish reported facts, interpretation, uncertainty and sample information. A linked source may change after an article is published.

Source coverage and confidence do not make every claim certain. Verify important decisions with the original source, especially for financial, medical, legal or time-sensitive matters.

Review and disclosure

Editorial workflows include source evidence, AI-assisted preparation and an independent review step. Independent review may be performed by another AI agent; it does not establish human owner acceptance. Review records must distinguish automated checks, editorial decisions and any actual human approval for the relevant revision.

AI assistance, sponsorship and source limitations should be disclosed where relevant. The presence of a review control does not prove that a particular piece has passed human review. External AI providers are not enabled by these draft policies.

Third-party material retains its copyright and licence. Attribution is not permission to republish a whole work. Publisher and source licensing must be reviewed for the actual reuse.

Requesting a correction

Use the contact form’s Content topic to record a local correction request. Include the article or report address, the disputed statement, supporting evidence and a concise explanation. The verified editorial contact and response process are owner review items.

The team should investigate, record the decision, correct material errors and make meaningful revisions understandable to readers. Receiving a local request does not automatically edit an article, send an external email or establish a response deadline.