Follow the evidence.
Keep the perspective.
Our reporting is only as useful as the reasoning and sources behind it. Here is the standard we work toward.
01 / Select for significance
We prioritize developments that change capabilities, access, deployment, economics, or governance. Attention alone does not make an announcement significant.
02 / Go to the source
We seek original research papers, technical documentation, official announcements, and policy documents. We link sources near the claims they support, and identify when a claim comes from a company rather than an independent evaluation.
03 / Separate fact from interpretation
Reports distinguish what happened from our assessment of why it matters and what could happen next. Predictions are scenarios, not established outcomes. Benchmark results should include relevant limitations and testing context.
04 / Show the uncertainty
Early research, demos, and unpublished results require context. We flag gaps in evidence, limited availability, and claims we cannot independently verify.
05 / Make corrections visible
Substantive corrections will be noted in the affected article with a date and a description of what changed. Minor spelling and formatting fixes may be made without a separate note.
06 / Keep editorial responsibility
AI tools may assist research organization, drafting, or editing. A human editor remains responsible for verifying claims and sources before publication. Sponsored content and material conflicts will be clearly disclosed.
Found an issue? Report a correction on GitHub, including the article URL, the claim, and a supporting source.