How We Report | Industry Contents Editorial Standards

2 min read

Industry Contents holds itself to the following standards and wants to be accountable for meeting them. We invite our readers to hold us to these principles as well.

Every claim traces to a primary source

When we cite a figure, we link to where it originated. We do not cite an article that cites an article. If a number cannot be traced to its origin, it does not run.

Brand data is labelled as so

Benchmarks commissioned by the company selling the product can still be useful, but they are not independent evidence. Where we use them, we say who paid for the test and we say it in the same sentence as the result, not in a footnote.

We report the limits

An average accuracy score hides where a system fails. Wherever the underlying data allows it, we report performance by category rather than as a single number.

How we use AI, and how we do not

We use AI tools for research assistance, drafting support and editing, in the same way any modern newsroom uses software. We do not publish unverified AI output. Every factual claim, figure and quotation in a published piece is checked against its primary source by a human before it goes live. Any error that survives that process is ours, not the tool’s.

Corrections

We correct errors publicly. Not optional, not handled behind closed doors.

If a published piece contains a factual error, a misquote, or an outdated figure, we fix it and say so. Every correction carries a dated note at the foot of the article stating what changed. We do not edit a piece and remove the record of the original.

Corrections fix errors of fact. Updates add new information after publication, like a company responding after the piece ran. Both are dated and labelled for what they are.

Spot an error, tell us through the contact page or email [email protected]. We review it the same week.