Methodology
Our sourcing and review requirements, and the limits of the imported archive.
Sourcing and evidence
New factual articles and substantive refreshes must link the exact documents supporting their claims. Primary documentation, company filings, dated announcements, attributable interviews and reproducible observations are preferred. Credit reporting that originated elsewhere. A vendor statement is evidence of what that vendor said, not independent proof of performance.
Separate reported facts, interpretation and illustrative examples. Label synthetic calculations and hypothetical creative explicitly. Creative performance claims require actual performance evidence; an ad library or a screenshot alone cannot establish spend, conversions or return.
Legacy archive review
The imported archive includes AI-assisted drafts and historical editorial dates. Review is incomplete: missing citations and reviewer records are not replaced by an organizational byline. Visible review notices describe the evidence status; they do not certify every claim. Older operational guidance should be checked against the current linked platform requirements before use.
Dates
Archive dates preserve the material's historical editorial context. They are not verified first-live dates. The archive's actual first public release dates remain unknown. New publication must record the actual release time separately from the period covered by its reporting.
A reviewed date records a documented check. A revised date is reserved for substantive changes. Neither changes a historical article's original context or makes an unchanged story new.
Corrections
Material corrections must identify what was wrong, what changed, when it changed and the supporting source on the article. Preserve the original claim's history. An added source or clarification must not be labelled an independently verified correction unless it actually resolves the claim.
Send the article URL, disputed passage and supporting evidence to newsroom@ualedger.com. Delivery and response times are not guaranteed in this local preview.
AI assistance and human accountability
AI may assist research and drafting. It is never evidence for a reported fact. New publication and substantive refreshes require a real named human reviewer to approve the exact content version after checking its sources. No story is published without that human sign-off. This is the publication requirement; incomplete legacy review records are disclosed rather than presented as meeting it.
“UA Ledger staff” is an organizational attribution for material without a verified individual byline. It does not assert that a particular person has reviewed the story. Verified identities and version-specific approvals must be recorded before a human review claim is made.
Commercial independence
See our editorial policy. No original benchmark dataset or Index edition is currently published. Future research must state its sample, dates, method, reuse rights and limitations.