Define the user’s decision
We start with the question a reader is trying to answer, the likely level of knowledge and the action they may take next.
How we research and review
Evidence, context and practical usefulness.
Our research process is designed to answer the reader’s real question, check important claims and make the limitations of an answer clear.
Our working process
The depth of research depends on the subject and the consequences of getting it wrong. A simple explanation and a high-impact financial or property guide should not be treated as if they carry the same level of risk.
Identify material claims
We separate facts that need checking from explanation, opinion, illustrative examples and assumptions.
Use the strongest suitable sources
Where available, we prefer legislation, regulators, official statistics, standards bodies, product documentation and other primary sources.
Check context and exceptions
Rules, prices and eligibility can vary by date, location, provider and personal circumstances. Relevant variations should be made clear.
Explain trade-offs
We aim to show meaningful benefits, drawbacks, costs and risks rather than forcing a complicated choice into a single universal answer.
Make the next step useful
Guides should help readers compare, verify, calculate, prepare questions or recognise when professional advice is appropriate.
Review before and after publication
We check clarity, internal consistency, links and important claims, then revisit pages when facts or reader needs materially change.
Correct openly
If an error is identified, we assess its significance, update it promptly and add a correction note when the change is material.
Source selection
- Primary and official sources are preferred for rules, rates, definitions and regulated information.
- Reputable specialist and academic sources may add context or explain areas where official material is limited.
- Commercial sources can be useful for product facts and prices, but marketing claims are not treated as independent evidence.
- Anonymous claims, copied summaries and unsupported statistics should not be presented as established facts.
Comparisons and calculators
- Comparison criteria should be relevant to the decision and explained in language a reader can understand.
- We avoid implying that one option is best for everyone when suitability depends on circumstances.
- Calculator assumptions, exclusions and calculation dates should be visible near the result.
- Outputs are estimates unless the page explicitly states otherwise and should be checked before a financial commitment.
Use of technology
Research, drafting and quality-control tools may help organise information, identify gaps or test readability. They do not remove the need to check claims, apply editorial judgement or take responsibility for what is published.
Content should not be published merely because it is easy to generate or appears well optimised. It must be original, accurate enough for its purpose and genuinely useful to the intended reader.
Last reviewed: 16 July 2026. If you believe a source is outdated or a claim needs review, please use our corrections process.
Want us to check something?
Send the page address, the claim you are concerned about and any reliable source that may help us review it.
Contact Attach Planet