Editorial methodology

Primary sources required

Every factual claim in an article must be backed by a primary source: a published and peer-reviewed research paper, official manufacturer documentation, or regulatory text (directive, regulation, decision). Press articles and blogs are not primary sources. If a claim cannot be sourced this way, it is either removed or clearly marked as a hypothesis or the author's opinion.

Separating facts, interpretations, and opinions

Three distinct levels are maintained in every article:

• Fact: verifiable, sourced, reproducible statement. Presented without subjective qualification.
• Interpretation: the author's reading from verified facts. Flagged as such ("my reading of this is...", "one can infer that...").
• Opinion: value judgment or positioning. Clearly marked as a point of view, not as truth.

The steelman

On any contested point, the author must present the best version of the opposing position before discussing it. This means representing the opposing argument as strongly as possible, not in its weakest form. A reader who holds the opposing view must recognise that their thesis has been fairly represented.

No absolute predictions

Statements like "AI will never be able to..." or "this will replace everything" are not allowed. Language is calibrated and time-bounded: "at the current stage of known models", "since 2023", "in documented cases so far". Predictions not backed by solid evidence are either removed or explicitly presented as speculation.

Correction policy

Every page shows its last revision date. If a factual error is reported or discovered, it is corrected without delay, and the correction is dated and visible in the article. There are no silent corrections.

What this site does not do

• No stock market forecasts or investment advice.
• No paid promotion of products or services.
• No sponsored articles (even disguised as "branded content").
• No claims about unpublished proprietary data.
• No undeclared conflict of interest.