What this policy covers
This policy applies to reviews, comparisons, alternatives, best-tool lists, guides, and the supporting data published by evidique. It explains how we decide what to cover, what counts as evidence, and who has the final word.
Our job is not to make every tool look good. It is to help solo developers, publishers, and small teams understand what a product can do, where it gets awkward, and what it costs today.
How we choose coverage
Editors choose topics based on reader usefulness, meaningful product changes, category demand, and whether we can test the central claims. Popularity can put a tool on the list; it cannot decide the verdict.
Vendors may suggest products or provide access. We do not promise coverage, a publication date, or a favorable result in exchange.
Evidence and sources
Material claims should connect to a repeatable task, captured output, original screenshot, product documentation, or another dated primary source. When only secondary reporting is available, we identify it and avoid presenting the claim as settled fact.
Product features, limits, and pricing can change between checks. Each article displays its publication and update dates, and pricing claims should include the date they were verified.
Testing and demonstration content
We call something hands-on only when an editor used the product for the tasks described. A free trial, paid plan, or vendor-provided account may be used, and the access method should be disclosed when it could affect the result.
Demonstration pages exist to show the publication format while testing is still incomplete. They carry a prominent notice. Placeholder scores, sample conclusions, and illustrative results are not recommendations.
Scores and verdicts
Scores follow the published weighting system in How we test. Editors score the evidence collected for the stated audience and use case—not a vendor's feature list or a product's reputation.
A score is a compact summary, not a substitute for the review. The written verdict, limitations, test notes, and pricing context explain what the number cannot.
Commercial independence
Affiliate availability, sponsorship, advertising, gifts, and vendor access do not qualify a product for coverage or improve its position. Commercial partners cannot preview, approve, or suppress an editorial conclusion.
Paid placements, if introduced, will sit outside editorial rankings and carry a clear label. Affiliate links follow the separate affiliate disclosure.
AI in the workflow
AI tools may help transcribe notes, organize an outline, compare drafts, or flag unclear prose. They do not receive final editorial authority. A named human editor checks the evidence, wording, score, links, and published conclusion.
We do not invent tests, quotes, customer experiences, or product behavior to fill a gap. If the evidence is missing, the honest answer is to say so or postpone the conclusion.
Updates and corrections
We review a correction request against primary evidence. When a material error is confirmed, we fix it promptly, change the visible update date, and add an editor's note when the correction changes the verdict or meaning of the page.
Small spelling, formatting, and broken-link fixes may be made without an editor's note. Products are re-tested when a change is likely to alter the recommendation, not merely because a release note exists.
Accountability
Ethan Miller owns this policy and takes responsibility for evidique's published work. Send a correction to x771364026@gmail.com with the page URL, disputed claim, source, and date checked.