Editorial Standards

Last updated: October 25, 2026

These standards apply to every article published under aurethis.com/articles. They describe what we require before a piece goes live.

1. Sourcing

• Primary sources come first: vendor documentation, changelogs, model and API references, regulatory filings, peer-reviewed papers, and direct product testing.
• Secondary reporting is used for context only, and is attributed.
• Community discussion (forums, social posts) is treated as a signal about what practitioners are asking, never as evidence of a factual claim.
• Any statistic in an article must be traceable to a named source. If we cannot source it, we cut it.

2. Authorship and review

• Each article carries a publication date and a last-reviewed date. The last-reviewed date changes only when the substance is re-verified, not when the page is re-rendered.
• Drafts produced with AI assistance are reviewed line by line against the cited sources before publication.
• Claims about pricing, model versions, benchmarks, and availability are re-checked at review time, because these change fastest.

3. What we publish and what we refuse

• We prefer specific, testable claims over trend language.
• We do not publish invented benchmarks, invented quotes, invented customers, or speculative numbers presented as fact.
• We do not publish sponsored posts, paid rankings, or affiliate-funded comparisons.
• Where a conclusion is uncertain, the article says so.

4. Updates

Articles are revisited when the underlying facts change: a new model release, a pricing change, a deprecation, or a correction. Substantive changes are recorded on our corrections page.

5. Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently of commercial activity. Coverage of a competitor to an Aurethis product is held to the same standard as any other coverage, and our own products are labelled as ours when discussed.

To raise a standards concern: [email protected].