Topic selection
Topics may be selected because they are analytically useful, timely, connected to a program, requested by readers, or relevant to a broader market framework. Selection does not mean the company recommends the asset, strategy, platform, or transaction discussed.
Commercial practicality may influence which topics can be produced. That practical constraint should not determine whether a factual statement is true or whether a material risk is omitted.
Content types and labels
| Content type | Purpose | Expected treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Factual statement | Describes an event, figure, document, product feature, or rule. | Use an identifiable source and a relevant timeframe when material. |
| Analysis or interpretation | Explains why information may matter or how pieces relate. | State assumptions and distinguish the interpretation from observed facts. |
| Scenario or illustration | Shows how a framework could behave under assumed conditions. | Identify assumptions and avoid presenting the scenario as a forecast or promise. |
| Opinion | Expresses a judgment that reasonable people may dispute. | Label or frame it clearly and avoid presenting preference as fact. |
| Sponsored or affiliate material | Supports a commercial relationship. | Disclose the relationship and avoid misleading independence claims. |
| Administrative message | Explains access, publication, subscription, or service information. | Keep operational statements accurate and separate from investment claims. |
Source standards
For material claims, editors should prefer official filings, regulator or government releases, exchange notices, issuer disclosures, original datasets, provider documentation, and other primary sources. Established reporting, academic work, and professional commentary may provide context or synthesis.
A secondary source should not be used to overstate what the underlying evidence supports. Anonymous or social-media claims require heightened caution and should not be treated as verified merely because they are widely repeated.
Review workflow
Define the claim
Identify the main question, timeframe, intended audience, and what the material does not address.
Collect and rank evidence
Locate relevant primary sources, note publication dates, and compare conflicting evidence.
Separate fact from interpretation
Make clear where the material moves from source-backed fact to analysis, scenario, or opinion.
Review material risks
Identify uncertainty, missing data, alternative explanations, and conditions that could invalidate the conclusion.
Check disclosures and presentation
Review commercial relationships, charts, attribution, headline wording, and calls to action.
Publish, monitor, and correct
Update or correct material when new evidence, provider changes, or reader reports justify action.
Headlines, summaries, and calls to action
A headline or summary should not imply certainty that the body does not support. A call to action should accurately describe what opens next and should not disguise a group invitation, external platform, or research publication as a brokerage account or guaranteed trading service.
Charts, images, and market data
Charts should identify the relevant instrument, period, source, and important transformations where practical. Cropping, scaling, color, and annotation should not materially distort the underlying information. Third-party attribution should remain visible and provider restrictions should be respected.
Commercial and personal conflicts
Known material relationships should be disclosed where they could affect interpretation. Editors should not suppress a material risk or correction merely to protect a commercial relationship. A disclosure does not substitute for evidence or remove the need for fair presentation.
Updates and corrections
A factual error that changes a material conclusion should be corrected promptly and transparently. Minor grammar, formatting, or accessibility fixes may be made without a prominent notice when they do not change meaning. The Corrections Policy explains the review process.
Editorial complaints
Send the page URL, statement, reason for concern, and supporting source to Contact email. A disagreement with a conclusion does not by itself prove factual error, but a well-supported alternative interpretation may justify clarification.
Use of automated and AI-assisted tools
Automated or AI-assisted tools may support research organization, transcription, formatting, translation, or an initial draft when appropriate. They do not replace editorial judgment, source review, or human responsibility for the published material.
Material financial claims, quotations, dates, calculations, and descriptions of third-party services should be checked against reliable sources before publication. AI-generated output is not treated as a primary source, and confidential credentials or unnecessary personal information should not be entered into public AI services.