A publication that asks to be trusted on load ratings and corrosion chemistry has to say what it does. These are the standards every page on this site is written against.
1. Accuracy
Every checkable claim is attributable. Specifications trace to manufacturer literature or a standard. Data traces to the issuing body. Derivations show their arithmetic. Articles carry a sources list, and the list says what each source supports rather than existing for decoration.
No invented precision. Where a figure is uncertain, we publish a range and say it is a range. Where a figure varies by model year, region or trim, we say so and tell you to measure. An honest range is more useful than a false decimal.
Prices are bands with a date. Never a single figure, never presented as a specification.
2. Sourcing
The source hierarchy is published in full. In summary: standards first, manufacturer literature second, government and institutional data third, retailer specification tables fourth and only for dimensions and price bands, and first-principles derivation where the arithmetic is shown.
Forum posts, video reviews and marketing copy are not sources of fact on this site.
3. No fabricated experience
This is the standard most often broken in this subject area, and breaking it is the fastest way to make everything else on a site worthless.
4. Independence
No manufacturer, distributor or retailer has editorial input, review rights or advance sight of anything published here. Coverage, comparison outcomes and recommendations are not purchasable. Nothing on this site is written to a brief supplied by a company whose products it discusses.
5. Comparisons name their criteria first
Any comparison on this site states the criteria and the weighting before applying them, so that a reader who weights differently can still use the underlying data. We do not publish ranked lists whose order cannot be derived from stated criteria.
6. Revision and dating
Every page carries a last updated date. Substantive revisions update it. Cosmetic edits do not, because a date that moves for a typo tells the reader nothing.
Pages built on specifications that change (product lineups, price bands, standards revisions) are reviewed on a rolling basis. Where a figure has a known shelf life, the page says so inline rather than leaving a stale number looking authoritative.
7. Corrections are visible
Errors are corrected on the page, dated and described. We do not silently edit a mistake away. The full policy, and how to report an error, is on the corrections page.
8. Safety content
Articles touching structural loading, chemical handling, vehicle loading or security carry explicit warnings where a mistake has real consequences, and defer to codes, manufacturer instructions and qualified professionals rather than substituting for them. Where an installation depends on structure we cannot see, we give the method and the questions to ask, not a number to trust blindly.
On security topics we write for the defender. We describe vulnerability classes and countermeasures at the level a trade publication would, and we do not publish step-by-step methods for defeating any specific lock or security device.
9. Accessibility and reading experience
Pages are built to be readable on a phone in a workshop: semantic structure, real headings, tables that reflow, sufficient contrast in both light and dark, keyboard-operable interactive tools, and no interstitials over the content. Calculators state their formula so the page remains useful without scripting.
10. Reader reports
Specification disputes are welcome and are checked against primary sources. If you can show a figure here is wrong, we would rather know. Use the contact page.