Editorial Policy

Last updated 7 September 2026

This page is the standard we hold ourselves to. It is deliberately specific, so that a reader — or a retailer who dislikes what we published — can check whether we actually followed it.

Evidence first

Every factual claim on a product page traces to a source: a published study, a manufacturer's own documentation, a retailer's listed price, or our own recorded observation.
Manufacturer claims are presented as manufacturer claims. They are never restated as findings.
We do not invent numbers, and we do not carry a specification we could not find a source for. An empty cell is better than a confident guess.
Where evidence is weak or absent, the page says so plainly. "We could not substantiate this" is a publishable result and we publish it.

Sourcing standards

Human research is cited in preference to animal or laboratory work, and the difference is stated rather than smoothed over. The full hierarchy is on the Methodology page.
Studies are linked or cited well enough for a reader to find them.
Where a study was funded by a manufacturer with an interest in the result, we say so.
We do not cite other affiliate sites as evidence. Repeating a number that another commercial site invented does not make it true.

Conflicts of interest

Affiliate commission is disclosed automatically above the first affiliate link on any page carrying one, by the template rather than by a writer remembering.
Commission rates play no part in ranking, scoring, or claim assessment.
We do not accept payment for a review, for a placement, or for the removal of criticism.
If a product was supplied free or on loan, the page says so.
If we hold any other interest in a company we cover, we disclose it on the page.

Who writes this

Content is published under the name of the publication, The Evidence Stack, rather than individual bylines. We do not claim a newsroom, a review panel, or clinical staff. Where a specific contributor's credentials are ever relevant to a page, they will be named on that page and they will be real.

Use of AI

We use AI tools to help with research organisation, source discovery, comparison work, drafting and editing. We say so here rather than leaving you to wonder.

AI output is not evidence. Nothing an AI tool produces is treated as a source. Every material factual and evidence claim on this site must trace to an appropriate source — published research, manufacturer documentation, a retailer's listing, or our own recorded observation — and a tool's confident summary of what the literature says does not satisfy that.

AI-assisted work is never presented as first-hand experience. If a page says we handled a product, a person handled it. The experience labels on Methodology mean exactly what they say.

Independence from manufacturers

Manufacturers do not get to review a page before publication, do not get copy approval, and cannot buy the removal of an unfavourable finding. They are welcome to send us evidence, and if it changes our conclusion we will change it and record the change on the Corrections page — as a correction, with its origin noted.

Keeping pages current

Prices, availability and links decay. Every commercial page records when its prices were last verified and is re-checked on a schedule. A page we no longer stand behind is corrected or withdrawn, not quietly left up.

Complaints

If you believe we have breached this policy, tell us — see Contact. We would rather be corrected than be wrong in public.