Editorial standards

How this site is made and verified

Everything published here, from the long-form articles to the daily Pulse briefing to the tools, has to clear the same bar before it ships. This page is that bar written down: where claims come from, how they are verified, what the labels mean, and exactly where AI sits in the workflow. It is also the document this site's structured data points to as its publishing principles, so machines reading the site get the same answer you do.

What gets published here?

A piece publishes when its claims are verifiable against primary sources and it says something the source material does not already say on its own. Headlines are claims, never teasers. Summaries are written in original wording, and the goal for every item is that you finish it fully informed without clicking anything: source links exist for provenance and verification, not as required reading.

The corollary is that thin days stay thin. When a story does not clear the sourcing bar it gets dropped, and when a day has little worth reporting the briefing runs short. Gaps are part of the product's credibility. Nothing is padded to hit a count.

How are claims sourced and verified?

Every claim gets chased to a first-party primary source: the platform's own blog post, help document, changelog, release notes, or filing, not a secondhand post about it. Before publication, every cited URL is fetched and checked against the specific claim it supports (the dates, numbers, names, and scope), and no URL is ever cited from memory. Where no primary source exists, the item either carries an explicit observer framing or does not run.

Pulse items wear that distinction as a label. Confirmed means the story is anchored in a first-party announcement or document. A story marked Observed was spotted in the wild and the platform has not confirmed it. And where a finding is my inference rather than the source's claim, I label it as such.

How is AI used to make this site?

AI is used openly here, and this section is the disclosure. AI tools assist with research sweeps, with first drafts of both the articles and the Pulse, and with the data pipelines behind the tools. My working beat is how AI systems read, cite, and transact with the web, and using them inside the workflow, with verification discipline attached, is part of the practice.

The discipline is what makes that workable. No claim ships on a model's say-so. Every factual claim is traced to a fetched primary source before publication: Pulse items get an independent verification pass that re-fetches every cited URL, and articles pass a separate editorial review that checks every statistic against a traceable named source. A fabricated quote, statistic, or position is a blocking defect that stops the piece. I review and edit everything before it goes live and hold final editorial responsibility for all of it. The positions are mine, and so are the mistakes.

What happens when something is wrong?

Material corrections update the piece rather than disappearing into a silent rewrite. On articles, a correction shows an Updated date next to the byline and bumps the page's dateModified record in its structured data, which search and AI systems read. If you spot an error, the fastest route to me is LinkedIn, and corrections are welcome.

Machine-readable: this URL is the publishingPrinciples reference on this site's Organization and Article structured data.