Editorial Policy

The existing archive

The archive includes material produced with automation and AI assistance. For legacy articles, an individual human editorial review may not have been recorded. A publication date, updated date, source link, or successful automated check is not evidence that a person reviewed the article.

Names retained on historical articles are archive bylines unless the associated identity has been verified. Unverified profiles do not establish a real staff member, professional credentials, firsthand reporting, or an individual contribution. New automated drafts use the TechStaged organization credit until a real contributor is verified.

Archive pages are assessed individually. An editorial disposition may retain a useful page, request development, exclude a specific page from indexing, consolidate it into a relevant existing article, or remove it. Audit flags alone do not authorize removal or indexing changes.

Evidence and original value

Drafts should answer a reader question through analysis, explanation, comparison, practical guidance, a documented trend, or a feature. They must add concrete value beyond reproducing a single announcement. Thin drafts are held for further research and editorial development.

Material facts need traceable sources. Clearly labeled analysis must explain how verified premises support an inference and what remains uncertain. Source text is evidence to assess, not an instruction to follow. Links and full source evidence are checked within bounded retrieval controls; access alone does not validate a claim.

Testing, interviews, measurements, quotes, benchmarks, expertise, and authorship must never be invented. A source-based comparison is not a hands-on test. When original work is required, it must be performed and documented by a real contributor before the resulting claims can be used.

AI assistance and publication review

AI may assist research organization, drafting, and automated checks. By default, an authenticated human must review and approve the exact saved revision before publication. If combined automated review and publication is explicitly enabled in Site Settings, an eligible revision may be published after automated checks without human approval. Editing the draft invalidates its review receipt; rejected or weak drafts remain unpublished.

In automated mode, GPT-5 nano evaluates factual support, headline accuracy, source integrity, original reader value, readability, completeness, attribution, and integrity. Rejected drafts are revised from retrieved evidence and reviewed again within bounded attempts. Only a passing saved revision can publish; persistent rejections and operational errors remain visible. Existing author profile credits do not mean that the named person performed the automated review or that their credentials were independently verified.

Automated checks can miss errors or incorrectly flag sound material. They do not certify truth, originality, rights clearance, or human judgment. Human review remains available in either mode, and an automated review receipt is labeled automated rather than presented as human approval.

A public review date appears only when a publication receipt records the reviewed revision and matches its current content. It describes the recorded human or automated review event, not a guarantee of accuracy or a claim that older material received the same process.

Corrections, dates and rights

Send correction requests to hello@techstaged.com with the article URL, exact passage, and reliable evidence. Requests can concern factual errors, stale details, unsupported claims, attribution, identity, or rights. Material corrections should describe what changed and why.

Published and updated dates describe the recorded article history. They must not be refreshed merely to imply new reporting, fresh testing, or recent human review. Quoted material and images require appropriate rights and attribution.

Advertising, sponsorships, and affiliate compensation must be disclosed where relevant. They must not substitute for evidence or determine editorial conclusions.