PolicyForge publishing standards

    Editorial standards

    PolicyForge publishes practical information about privacy, platform rules, policy drafting, and AI governance. These standards explain how we source, review, update, and label that work.

    Last reviewed October 6, 2026

    Primary sources first

    Legal and regulatory claims should trace to statutes, regulators, courts, official platform documentation, or another authoritative source. Secondary commentary may add context, but it does not replace the controlling source.

    Claims must match the source

    Dates, deadlines, penalties, enforcement outcomes, statistics, and product requirements are checked against the cited material. We avoid turning a statutory maximum, proposal, or isolated decision into a universal rule.

    Editorial review is identified honestly

    Editorial review checks sourcing, clarity, dates, and internal consistency. It is not legal review. If qualified legal review occurs, the reviewer and the scope of that review should be named on the page.

    Publication and update dates stay distinct

    The original publication date remains attached to the article. A modified date changes only after a substantive review or revision, not after formatting, tracking, or unrelated technical work.

    Automation does not own the conclusion

    Automated tools may help organize sources, compare documents, or draft language. The named author or editorial owner remains responsible for checking the sources, limitations, and final published text.

    Product claims must be demonstrable

    We do not publish invented customer counts, ratings, compliance rates, awards, rejection statistics, or guarantees. Product statements should be verifiable from the live product, public documentation, or an internal evidence record.

    Our review workflow

    1. 1

      Define the reader question and confirm that the page has a distinct purpose.

    2. 2

      Collect controlling sources and record support for material claims.

    3. 3

      Draft practical guidance that separates legal requirements from recommendations.

    4. 4

      Check citations, dates, numerical claims, product statements, and internal links.

    5. 5

      Verify the title, description, canonical URL, structured data, and visible update date before release.

    6. 6

      Review index status and directional Search Console performance after publication.

    Updates and reported errors

    Laws, enforcement positions, and platform rules change. We revise an existing URL when its core reader intent remains useful. We preserve the original publication date and add a new modified date after a substantive update.

    If a material claim is unsupported or wrong, we correct or remove it. We do not remove a useful page merely to hide an error, and we do not change a URL or canonical target without reviewing search demand, links, and a suitable replacement.

    Report a possible error with the page URL, the disputed statement, and a supporting source. We review reports for factual support and update the article when the evidence warrants it.

    support@policyforge.co

    Editorial ownership

    Articles attributed to the PolicyForge Editorial Team are owned by the organization. The profile explains the topics covered, the limits of the guidance, and how to contact the team.

    View the editorial team profile