Editorial Policy

1. Why this policy exists#

2. Core editorial standards#

• Accuracy over speed: if a claim cannot be supported well enough, it should be softened, qualified, or removed.
• Clarity over hype: we avoid artificially urgent language, hidden conditions, and implication-heavy copy that makes a project sound more certain than the record supports.
• Authorship and review signals: pages should make it clear who created the content, when it was updated, and what kind of page it is.
• Separation of fact and opinion: commentary, analysis, or projections should not be presented as verified fact.
• Corrections are part of quality, not an embarrassment to hide.

3. Source hierarchy for property and market claims#

• Primary sources come first: RERA filings, government portals, statutory records, approved plans, formal developer documents, lender material, and executed transaction documents where relevant.
• Direct confirmation comes next: documented responses from the promoter, builder team, or authorised representative when the claim is specific and verifiable.
• Secondary reporting or market commentary can inform context, but it should not outrank an official record.
• When sources conflict, the page should reflect the uncertainty instead of flattening it into a confident claim.

4. Standards for project listings and property pages#

• We prefer to publish only when the basic identity of the project is clear: project name, promoter, location, property type, and the relevant registration or approval context where applicable.
• For Karnataka under-construction research, RERA should be treated as a primary trust layer before a page is presented as verified or diligence-ready.
• We should not label a claim as verified if the supporting record is missing, contradictory, or still only verbal.
• Price references should be framed as contextual and time-bound unless the page clearly states otherwise.
• If a project is in pre-launch or the registration position is unclear, that uncertainty should be visible, not buried.

5. AI assistance and editorial review#

• AI-assisted drafts should be checked for factual drift, unsupported certainty, duplicated boilerplate, and citation gaps before publication.
• High-impact content about legality, money, possession, or approvals should not bypass review simply because it reads smoothly.
• If we cannot comfortably explain who created a page, how it was assembled, and why readers should trust it, the page is not ready.

6. Commercial relationships and sponsored material#

• Advertising, partnership, or lead-generation relationships must not be disguised as independent editorial judgement.
• Sponsored, paid, promoted, or partner-driven content should be clearly labeled in a way a normal reader can understand.
• Commercial relationships do not grant a right to override factual corrections, remove material risk context, or suppress disclaimers that buyers should see.

7. Corrections, updates, and removals#

• Material factual errors should be corrected as soon as reasonably possible after verification.
• Where a meaningful change affects buyer interpretation, the page should show an updated date and, where appropriate, a correction note or refreshed explanation.
• Pages that become stale, unverifiable, or structurally misleading should be revised, clearly qualified, or removed instead of being left to age silently.

8. Content we may refuse, restrict, or remove#

• Unverifiable property claims, manipulated images, false urgency, fake assured-return messaging, or disguised promotional copy presented as neutral research.
• Incomplete or contradictory submissions that do not provide enough document support for publication.
• Claims that appear to market a project as verified while the registration or approval position is unclear.
• User, partner, or advertiser input that would materially weaken accuracy, disclosure, or consumer protection.

9. Correction-channel status#