Editorial Policy

This Editorial Policy describes the standards FoxVerdict applies to all published content. It covers editorial standards, fact-checking procedures, source requirements, AI usage, independence, and our corrections process.

1. Editorial Standards

FoxVerdict publishes product reviews and buying guides. All content must meet the following baseline standards before publication:

• Every factual claim is supported by evidence collected from verifiable sources.
• Scores reflect the quality of the supporting evidence, not editorial preference.
• Pros and cons are balanced and proportionate to the evidence.
• Language is clear, specific, and avoids marketing language.
• All content is reviewed and approved by a human editor before going live.

2. Fact-Checking

Every review is checked against the product's evidence file before publication. The evidence file contains specifications, Amazon ratings and review data, pricing, and user feedback patterns collected at the time of review.

Editors are expected to challenge any claim in the AI-generated draft that is not clearly supported by the evidence file. Unsupported claims are removed or flagged for further research before publication.

3. Source Requirements

Acceptable sources for evidence collection include:

• Manufacturer product pages and official specifications
• Amazon product listings (ratings, review counts, listed features)
• Retailer product pages for pricing cross-checks
• Category benchmark data from reputable test laboratories (where publicly available)

We do not cite competitor review sites as primary sources. We do not use press releases as evidence without independent corroboration.

4. AI Usage Policy

FoxVerdict uses AI language models as editorial assistants, not as autonomous publishers. Specifically:

• AI models are provided with our evidence file and asked to produce a structured draft review.
• AI models are not asked to research products independently or generate claims from training data.
• AI output is always reviewed and edited by a human before publication.
• No AI-generated content is published without human approval.
• The AI model used to generate a draft is recorded in our internal systems for audit purposes.

We believe AI-assisted editorial is transparent and legitimate when the AI is acting on verified evidence and the output is human-reviewed. We do not believe this is a form of deception — it is a more systematic way of synthesising information than traditional human-only editorial workflows.

5. Independence Policy

FoxVerdict does not accept:

• Payment from manufacturers or retailers in exchange for coverage or positive scores
• Free product samples in exchange for positive coverage
• Advertising that creates editorial obligations
• Sponsored content that is not clearly labelled as such

Affiliate commissions are earned at a flat rate set by the affiliate programme — we cannot earn more commission by scoring a product higher. This means our affiliate relationship does not create a financial incentive to inflate scores.

6. Review Corrections

We take factual accuracy seriously. If you believe a published review contains an error:

• Please contact us with a description of the error and, where possible, a reference to a source that contradicts our published claim.
• We will investigate all factual challenges with reference to the evidence file used to produce the review.
• If a correction is warranted, we will update the review, increment the review version number, and note the correction at the bottom of the page.
• We aim to respond to all correction requests within 5 business days.

7. Complaints

Editorial complaints can be submitted via our contact page. We will acknowledge all complaints within 2 business days and aim to resolve them within 10 business days. If you are not satisfied with our response, you may escalate to the relevant industry body.