Editorial standards
These are not aspirations. Every rule below runs as a check in the script that builds this site. A page that fails one does not get published with a note about it — the build stops and nothing is written at all.
The five rules that override everything
| # | Rule | What it forbids in practice |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | No invented numbers | Every figure is one of three things: a cited public dataset with a link, a documented first-party result, or an explicitly labelled model driven by inputs you supply. There is no fourth category. On this site every performance statistic routes through a single accessor that throws — the build fails — if the figure is not documented. |
| 2 | Never fill a data gap | Where a collecting agency withholds a value, we hatch it. We do not interpolate it, average it, infer it from neighbours, or colour it from whichever components happen to be published. The clearest example is a page that is entirely empty panel, published as a finding. |
| 3 | No legal or medical advice | We are a marketing agency, not a law firm and not a medical authority. No page here advises a family, evaluates a claim, or states what a matter might be worth. Rules and statutes are linked to primary text so you read the rule rather than our paraphrase. |
| 4 | Every claim survives a hostile read | Before anything ships it is read as a skeptical partner who has been burned by three agencies before. Any sentence that would make them close the tab is cut or sourced. |
| 5 | Depth over volume | One page that is the best page on the internet for its query beats forty thin ones. Page count is not a target here and never will be. If the standard yields two pages this month, we publish two. |
The gates, as they actually run
| Pattern | Why it is banned |
|---|---|
| "typical firms…" | An invented average dressed as a benchmark. Law 1. |
| "studies show" | An appeal to authority with no authority attached. |
| "guarantee" / "guaranteed" | Nobody can honour an outcome promise in litigation. |
| "best birth injury lawyer", "top-rated" | Superlatives that state bar advertising rules restrict. |
| "case is worth" | A case-value statement. Law 3. |
| "composite case study" / "composite illustration" | A fabricated result presented as evidence. |
| "act now", "limited time", "hurry" | Manufactured urgency, in a category where real deadlines exist and manufacturing them is cruel. |
| "in today’s fast-paced…" | Filler. It signals that nobody read the page before it shipped. |
| "TBD", "XX", "[X]", "PLACEHOLDER" | An unfilled placeholder that reached production is how invented numbers get born. |
Authorship and review
| Role | Requirement | Current status |
|---|---|---|
| Author | A named human with a bio and credentials on every substantive page | Kevin Schwaner — credentials |
| Medical reviewer | Required before any page asserts a clinical fact. RN, CNM, MD or DO. | Not yet retained. No page on this site asserts a clinical fact, and pages touching clinical territory carry an explicit notice saying medical review is not assigned. |
| Legal reviewer | Required for anything legal-adjacent. Licensed attorney, state noted. | Not yet retained. No page gives legal advice; every rule referenced links to primary text. |
| Last-updated date | Real, reflecting an actual review — never automatically bumped | Site-wide review date: 24 August 2026 |
Why the gap is on this page rather than hidden
A skeptical reader will check whether the reviewer names exist before they check anything else. Ours do not yet, and stating it here is both cheaper and more persuasive than being found out. Retaining a named clinical reviewer is the single capability we are buying; when it lands, the screening manual is rewritten under their name and this row changes. Until then the build refuses to publish a page marked clinical with a clinical assertion in it.
Sourcing
| Acceptable | Not acceptable |
|---|---|
| A federal or state dataset, linked, with its vintage stated | Another marketing agency’s blog post — that is how you inherit somebody else’s error and then defend it |
| A statute or rule, linked to the primary text | A summary of a statute on a content site |
| A peer-reviewed study, linked | A press release about a study |
| A documented first-party result, with what documents it named | A first-party result described as "over" or "up to" a round number |
| An explicitly labelled model, with its inputs visible and adjustable | A model presented as a measurement |
Where we model, the word modelled appears in the result itself, not in a footnote. Our market opportunity tool labels its two assumed inputs on screen and marks the two modelled output rows as modelled, because a caveat that only appears in the small print is a caveat designed not to be read.
Corrections
If something here is wrong, tell us and it goes in the dated corrections log whether or not it flatters us. Corrections are logged with the date they were reported, not the date they were fixed, because the gap between those two dates is the interesting part.
How the data was built → · The log → · Who is accountable → · Report an error →
Authorship & review
- Author
- Kevin Schwaner, Founder; Chief Marketing Officer. Credentials.
- Last reviewed
- Corrections
- Found an error? Tell us and it goes in the dated corrections log, whether or not it flatters us.