Editorial policy
Editorial standards and ethics
Our commercial relationships never change how we describe what a standard says. This page covers who reviews our guides, what we refuse to say, and how a commercial partner is allowed to appear. So far, no page on the site has been expert-signed.
Who reviews our guides
Before a guide that makes substantive regulatory statements is indexed, a named professional with relevant credentials reviews it. That means a Qualified Person or a Regulatory Affairs professional. The reviewer’s job is narrow: to confirm that the page is a fair, accurate, general-education account of the standards it cites. A review is not a compliance determination, and it does not create a consultant–client relationship.
We name only real, credentialed people. In structured data, we never label our own team, “editorial,” or a brand as a Person. A byline that implies a qualified person reviewed a page they didn’t review is a publishing defect. No qualified reviewer has signed a page yet, so no byline exists.
No hype and no promises about outcomes
We never say that a facility is or will be GMP-compliant, that anything is guaranteed to survive an audit, or that an inspection will pass. Those determinations belong to a QP, an RA professional, and the competent authority. They never belong to a guide, a vendor, or an AI tool.
Corrections
When we get something wrong, we correct it on the page and record the correction, with its date, in the regulatory timeline. We don’t make silent fixes. A site that asks readers to check what it says against primary sources has to keep an open, accurate record of its own corrections.
Any mention of equipment follows the rules in our Decimal disclosure. The conditions a claim has to meet before it can appear on the site are set out in our methodology.