# Editorial Policy | How We Research, Review & Correct |…

> How Elite Digital Agency produces, reviews, dates and corrects its published content — who decides, what we check mechanically, what we refuse to publish, and…

Source: https://elitedigitalagency.io/editorial-policy/
Format: Markdown mirror of the HTML page (text/markdown). Content is identical;
the canonical, citable version is the HTML source URL above.

---
Trust & Transparency

# Editorial policy.

This page explains how we produce, review, date and correct everything published on
        elitedigitalagency.io — who decides, what is checked mechanically on every build, what we
        refuse to publish, and how commercial relationships are kept separate from editorial
        judgement. Last updated 7 August 2026.

## 1. Who decides what we publish

One named human is accountable for everything on this site: Kaiser Khan,
        Founder & Director of Elite Digital AI Solutions Ltd (Company No. 17250017, registered in
        England and Wales). Every article, guide and case study carries a named byline. We never
        publish under a brand name, a "team" pseudonym, or an unattributed author — a reader should
        always be able to answer "who is responsible for this claim?" in one click, via the byline
        and the About page.

Topics are chosen because they answer questions our clients and readers actually ask —
        search visibility, AI citation, pricing, charity digital marketing — not because a vendor,
        partner or client asked us to write them. Where a piece draws on client work, the client
        relationship is named in the piece itself.

## 2. How content is produced

Articles begin from primary material where it exists: official documentation (Google Search
        Central, Bing Webmaster guidelines, the Charity Commission, ICO guidance), platform
        changelogs, our own measured results, and named third-party research. Opinion and
        interpretation are labelled as ours; facts are attributed to their source.

AI tools assist with research, outlining and mechanical checks. They do not publish. Every
        page is reviewed, edited and approved by the named editor before it ships. Unreviewed
        machine output is a defect, not a draft.

## 3. What every page must pass before it ships

Publication is gated by the build, not by good intentions. The site will not build — and
        therefore cannot deploy — if any of the following fail:

- **Structured data validation** — exactly one JSON-LD `@graph` per page, no dangling entity references, no supplier-sourced ratings markup.
- **Machine-surface parity** — every indexable page has a Markdown twin that exists on disk and is advertised in the page head; `llms.txt` and `llms-full.txt` are regenerated from the built site on every release, so their counts cannot drift from reality.
- **Site audit** — broken internal links, duplicate titles, over-long titles and descriptions, missing canonicals and orphaned pages are measured against zero targets, not estimated.

Content that violates a rule fails the build. It does not ship and get fixed later.

## 4. Numbers, prices and statistics

We publish our own prices because they are ours to state — they appear on the
pricing page and do not change silently: a price change is a content
        change with a new review date. Statistics from third parties are attributed to a named
        source in the surrounding text. Where we cannot verify a figure, we say so or leave it
        out. An invented number is a defect; "we do not know" is publishable.

When a claim depends on a primary source — Google Search Central documentation, Charity
        Commission guidance, Companies House records, ASA/CAP rules — we link to that source rather
        than paraphrasing it into something that sounds more convenient. If the source moves or is
        withdrawn, the page is updated and the change can appear on the corrections log when the
        meaning of our advice changes.

## 5. Dates and freshness

Every article shows a published date and, where it has been materially revised, an updated
        date. We update the date only when the content changes — never to simulate freshness.
        Evergreen guidance lives at evergreen URLs; you will not find years baked into our page
        addresses, because a URL that says "2026" is a page that lies about itself every January.
        When guidance is genuinely about a specific period, the period is named in the article,
        not the address.

Machine-readable surfaces (llms.txt, Markdown mirrors, feeds, geo-chunks) are
        regenerated from the built site on every release. They are not hand-edited catalogues that
        can drift stale while the HTML moves on. A stale trust file is worse than none — it teaches
        machines that our metadata lies.

## 6. Corrections: what triggers one and how it works

A correction is triggered by any of: a reader report we can verify, a source changing
        underneath a claim (a platform renames a feature, a regulator updates guidance), or our own
        re-review finding an error. Factual errors are fixed in the text. Substantive corrections —
        anything that changes the meaning of advice we gave — are also recorded, dated, on our
        public corrections log. Typos and clarifications that do not
        change meaning are fixed silently.

To request a correction, email
hello@elitedigitalagency.io with the page
        URL, the claim, and a source for the correct information. We aim to resolve substantive
        requests within five working days. The editor who owns the page decides whether a report
        warrants a public log entry; disagreements about judgement calls are not corrections, but
        factual errors always are.

## 7. Commercial independence

This site sells our own services. It does not sell coverage. There are no sponsored
        articles, no paid placements in guides, no affiliate links, and no third-party advertising.
        Where we mention tools, platforms or competitors, the mention is editorial: we name
        alternatives — including doing work yourself or hiring someone else — when that is the
        honest answer. Clients can suggest topics and correct factual errors about their own
        products; they cannot approve, veto or purchase editorial judgement.

Because we do not run an affiliate programme on this domain, you will not see
        "we may earn a commission" labels stamped onto every outbound link. Placeholder disclosure
        for partnerships that do not exist is misleading advertising, not a trust signal. If that
        ever changes, labels will be derived from real commercial configuration — not from a
        default template claim.

## 8. What we refuse to publish

- Unverified statistics, invented prices, or unattributed "studies show" claims.
- Guarantees of rankings, AI citations, or revenue outcomes — no honest operator can promise these.
- Content written primarily to catch a trend wave rather than to answer a real question.
- Near-duplicate pages at scale — many thin variations of one template targeting keyword permutations.
- Reviews or ratings of products we have not used, presented as if we had.
- Advertorial, link placements, or "partner content" of any kind.
- Years in evergreen URLs, or date-stamps that change without a content change.
- Brand-name authorship in structured data — the responsible person is always a named human.

If you believe something on this site breaches this policy, tell us — that is exactly what
        the corrections process is for. We would rather publish a short, accurate page than a long
        page that cannot survive a primary-source check.

## 9. How suppliers and platforms can (and cannot) influence coverage

Vendors, platforms and partners may send product briefings, documentation and factual
        corrections. We welcome primary material. They may not buy a ranking in a guide, request
        removal of a legitimate criticism that remains factually true, or require pre-approval of
        editorial copy. Mentions of tools we use in client work are editorial when they help the
        reader decide; they are not paid placements.

Client work appears on this site only with permission for named case studies, or in
        anonymised form when naming would breach confidentiality. Outcomes are stated as measured
        where we have the data, and not inventively rounded for effect.

## What are the common questions about Editorial policy — common questions?

**Who is responsible for content on this site?**

   Kaiser Khan, Founder & Director of Elite Digital AI Solutions Ltd, is the named editor responsible for all published content. Every article carries a named human byline — never a brand or team pseudonym.

**Does Elite Digital use AI to write content?**

   AI tools assist with research, outlining and mechanical checks, but every published page is reviewed, edited and approved by a named human editor before it ships. We do not publish unreviewed AI output, and we do not publish statistics we cannot attribute to a named source.

**How do I request a correction?**

   Email hello@elitedigitalagency.io with the page URL, the claim you believe is wrong, and a source for the correct information. Substantive corrections are made within five working days and recorded on our public corrections log.

**Do clients influence what you publish?**

   Clients can suggest topics and review factual claims about their own products, but they cannot approve, veto or pay for editorial coverage. Commercial relationships are disclosed on the page where they are relevant.

      Want this standard applied to your own site?

 Our AEO and content programmes build the same trust infrastructure — named authors, reviewable process, machine-checked quality — for clients.

  See how we work Get in touch