Skip to content
FaddyAI

Trust and transparency

FaddyAI editorial and corrections policy

Useful tools need honest explanations. This policy describes how we publish factual pages, product guides and research summaries—and how to tell us when something is wrong.

Last substantively reviewed August 19, 2026

Claims need support

We prefer primary documentation, original research and direct product checks. We distinguish verified facts from interpretation and do not present generated prose as evidence.

People remain accountable

AI may assist with drafting or organization, but a named human reviewer remains responsible for published claims, links, limitations and corrections.

Dates reflect real work

A dateModified value should change only after a substantive content review. A rebuild or deployment alone is not an editorial update.

Comparisons disclose perspective

FaddyAI-operated pages identify FaddyAI's role, avoid invented rankings, and state trade-offs. Inclusion does not imply independent endorsement.

Our review workflow

  1. 1

    Define the claim

    State exactly what a page is trying to establish, including the product version, date and audience when relevant.

  2. 2

    Check the source

    Use first-party documentation for product behavior and primary research for scientific claims whenever it is available.

  3. 3

    Test what we can

    Confirm routes, inputs, core actions and public access. A catalog audit is labeled separately from an end-to-end generation test.

  4. 4

    Publish the limits

    Note uncertainty, service dependencies, safety constraints and cases where professional judgment is still required.

  5. 5

    Record a real date

    Update the reviewed date only when the facts or analysis received a substantive check.