Sources and claim checks
Our editorial standard is to trace substantive factual claims to sources that support their exact scope. When a company describes its product, we attribute the statement to that company. Reading its documentation does not verify that the feature works as described.
Claims about current access, prices, account conditions, or interface steps require current evidence for the relevant location, channel, and plan. Evidence from one service does not establish the same fact about another. If an important detail is unknown, it stays unknown rather than being filled in from a similar product.
A source-check date records when source material was checked for the text. A publication date and a completed product test are separate records. Changing a date without doing the corresponding check does not satisfy this standard.
Examples and hands-on observations
Illustrative messages, situations, and images are labeled as examples or concept illustrations. They explain an idea; they are not customer stories, product screenshots, or evidence of a tested result.
A hands-on observation requires a record of the date, access location, device, channel, account or plan, steps taken, and actual outcome. That record limits what can be claimed. One recorded exchange would not establish how a service behaves in every future conversation.
The WantYou first-chat walkthrough is still incomplete. The guide’s fictional messages must not be presented as a substitute for it.
When specialist review is required
Our policy requires specialist review when a proposed claim depends on medical, legal, privacy, security, or child-safety expertise. A general editorial check cannot establish those conclusions.
A review must identify the person, the version examined, and the claims covered. No such specialist sign-off is claimed for these previews. Where the required evidence or reviewer is missing, the claim must be left out or held for review. A general list of questions to ask is not a privacy audit or a clinical recommendation.
Updates and corrections
The proposed corrections process starts with the page address, the statement in question, and the reason it may be wrong. Once a working contact route is available, an editor will need to log the issue, check the source and context, and record the action taken.
Our policy requires a visible note for a substantive correction explaining what changed and when. Minor typographical fixes may be recorded internally. A potentially harmful or materially false claim and its related commercial link must be withheld while the issue is checked.
These are editorial requirements, not a claim that a live corrections service is already operating. No public response deadline is promised. Contact processing is not active in this preview.
Send a correction
See Contact the editorial team for the planned email reply-request route. It will be for questions and corrections about Companion Guide. The current preview does not send requests.