Editorial policy.

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 They do not publish.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 [email protected] 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.