Source priority
Regulators, courts, company registers, filed accounts and binding terms receive priority for legal and contractual claims. Product documentation supports feature descriptions. Marketing is attributed to the platform and never presented as independent proof.
- Identify publisher and document title
- Record access and effective dates
- Name the exact claim supported
- Preserve product and jurisdiction scope
Claim-to-source test
An authentic document may still be irrelevant to the sentence beside it. Editors check whether the record directly supports the wording, whether it is current and whether material qualifications have been carried into the article.
Operational evidence
Hands-on findings require declared market, account type, device, product version, asset, amount, timestamp and reproducible steps. This edition publishes those scenarios with fixed inputs and records rather than substituting platform demonstrations or editorial assumptions.
Uncertainty and contradiction
Missing evidence is printed as not verified. Conflicting first-party statements are preserved as a contradiction until the publisher clarifies them or stronger evidence resolves the scope.
Evidence retention
The editorial file records stable URLs, captured copies where lawful, retrieval and effective dates, author notes and corrections. Fees, entities, regulation, terms, incidents and product versions are re-checked against their primary source when a conclusion changes. Sensitive personal data, credentials and wallet secrets are never included in a public source bundle.
Public-record parity
The server-rendered claim file is controlling. RSS, structured data, the research index and llms.txt may summarize or navigate the same claims, evidence gaps and dates; none may add a verdict or fact absent from the visible page. llms.txt is a navigation aid, not a Google ranking mechanism.