Editorial Standards

Standards for publication and revision

These standards guide the review of Clear AI News articles. They are requirements for editorial work, not a certification that every archived article has already passed every check. The archive is being reviewed for unsupported claims, outdated details and incomplete pages.

Evidence readers can inspect

Factual claims should link to the relevant primary material: a research paper, model card, release note, documentation or original statement. A vendor’s claim should be attributed to that vendor. Comparisons should state the versions, dates, scope and limitations of the evidence.

Labels such as “tested,” “hands-on” and “expert-reviewed” require supporting records. Without a documented test, an article should describe itself as a documentation-based overview or comparison. A byline alone does not demonstrate expertise or independent testing.

Commercial relationships

Advertising, sponsorship and affiliate relationships must be disclosed where they affect a reader’s interpretation. Paid material must be clearly labeled. Payment must not be presented as independent evidence of a product’s quality.

AI assistance and accountability

AI assistance does not establish accuracy. Generated quotations, citations and product specifications must be checked against their sources before publication. Claims of human or expert review require evidence of that review; they must not be added as generic assurances.

Corrections

Send the article URL, disputed passage and supporting source through our contact page. Substantive corrections should explain what changed. See the fact-checking policy for the evidence checklist and the editorial policy for coverage principles.