Editorial policy
Source-led guidance
Technical articles use official documentation and primary sources for commands, platform behaviour and changing product details. Each article lists its sources and the date they were checked. Examples have an explicit environment or version scope. Source verification is different from executing a procedure.
Buying guides compare operational fit, constraints, costs and exit considerations. Vendor claims are treated as documented capabilities, not independent proof of speed, reliability or support quality. A product is not described as tested without a corresponding record of the environment, procedure and result.
Research and human accountability
AI tools assist with research, drafting, structure and technical checks. Stuart Kerr Spindlow is the named owner and editorial decision-maker. AI-generated text is not first-hand experience, and neither a simulated result nor an illustrative command output is presented as an observed test.
Articles avoid unsupported qualifications, invented testimonials, universal winners and unverified performance figures. Where a question cannot be resolved from reliable evidence, the uncertainty is stated or the claim is withheld.
Corrections and updates
A correction should identify the article URL, affected statement, relevant version and supporting primary source. Sensitive logs, credentials and personal information are not needed to report an editorial error. Material technical corrections should preserve a record of what changed and why.
Dates change for substantive editorial revisions, not merely because the site is deployed again. Product and destination reviews are proposed monthly, with a broader quarterly content review; these are editorial review intentions, not a claim that automated monitoring jobs are running.
Commercial separation
Affiliate eligibility is separate from editorial suitability. Research-based articles remain useful without a purchase or outbound click. A relationship must be approved before a compensated destination is enabled, and disclosures must describe the actual relationship.
No review score or rating is invented to fill a template. Hands-on reviews require retained evidence and remain unpublished until that evidence supports the specific claims.