Fact-Checking Policy

Last updated: August 19, 2025

recoveryb is committed to publishing accurate, well-researched, and verifiable content on industrial AI implementation. This policy describes the standards and procedures we apply to ensure the factual integrity of everything we publish.

1. Scope

This policy applies to all editorial content published on recoveryb.digital, including articles, guides, analyses, and any other written material presented as informational or instructional in nature.

2. Core Principles

2.1 Accuracy

Every factual claim published on this site must be supported by credible, verifiable evidence. We do not publish claims that cannot be substantiated through reliable sources.

2.2 Transparency

We are open about our sources, our editorial methods, and any limitations in the information we present. Where uncertainty exists, it is clearly stated.

2.3 Independence

Our fact-checking process is editorially independent. Commercial relationships, sponsorships, or partnerships do not influence the factual standards applied to any content.

2.4 Accountability

When errors are identified, we correct them promptly and transparently. We do not quietly alter content without acknowledgment.

3. Source Standards

3.1 Acceptable Sources

We prioritize the following types of sources:

Peer-reviewed academic research and technical publications
Official documentation from recognized industry bodies and standards organizations
Primary data from original research, surveys, or direct reporting
Statements from named subject-matter experts with verifiable credentials
Official reports from established technology vendors or research institutions

3.2 Source Evaluation Criteria

Before citing any source, we evaluate it against the following criteria:

Authority: The source has recognized expertise or standing in the relevant field
Currency: The information is sufficiently recent to remain applicable
Accuracy: The source has a track record of factual reliability
Purpose: The source is not primarily promotional or advocacy-driven
Verifiability: The claims made can be independently confirmed

3.3 Unacceptable Sources

We do not rely on the following as primary sources:

Anonymous or unverifiable online content
Press releases or marketing materials used without independent verification
Social media posts without corroboration from credible sources
Content that cannot be traced to an identifiable author or institution

4. Pre-Publication Review Process

4.1 Author Responsibility

Every author is responsible for verifying the accuracy of all factual claims included in their content before submission. Authors must retain documentation of sources consulted during research.

4.2 Editorial Review

All content undergoes editorial review prior to publication. During this review, editors assess:

Whether factual claims are supported by cited sources
Whether statistics, figures, and data points are accurately represented
Whether technical claims align with current knowledge in the field
Whether any assertions require additional verification or qualification

4.3 Expert Consultation

For content covering highly technical or specialized aspects of industrial AI, we may consult external subject-matter experts to review claims before publication. Expert reviewers are identified where appropriate.

5. Handling Uncertainty and Contested Claims

Not all information in a rapidly evolving field such as industrial AI is settled or universally agreed upon. Where claims are:

Uncertain: We use qualifying language such as "research suggests," "evidence indicates," or "according to available data"
Contested: We present multiple credible perspectives and clearly identify areas of disagreement
Predictive: We distinguish clearly between established fact and forward-looking analysis or opinion
Based on limited data: We state the limitations of the underlying evidence explicitly

6. Corrections Policy

6.1 Identifying Errors

Errors may be identified through internal review, reader feedback, or updated information becoming available after publication. All identified errors are treated with equal seriousness regardless of how they are discovered.

6.2 Correction Procedure

When a factual error is confirmed:

The content is updated to reflect accurate information
A correction notice is appended to the affected content, stating the nature of the error and the date of correction
Significant corrections affecting the core meaning of an article are noted prominently
Minor typographical or formatting errors may be corrected without a formal notice

6.3 Retractions

In cases where content is found to be substantially inaccurate and cannot be adequately corrected, the content may be retracted. Retracted content is replaced with a notice explaining the reason for retraction.

7. Reader Feedback and Dispute Resolution

We welcome factual challenges from readers. If you believe content published on this site contains an inaccuracy, you may contact us at contact@recoveryb.digital with the following information:

The specific claim you believe to be inaccurate
A link or reference to the content in question
Evidence or sources supporting your correction

We review all substantiated factual challenges and respond within a reasonable timeframe. Disputes are assessed on the basis of evidence, not on the identity or affiliation of the person raising the concern.

8. Distinguishing Content Types

This site publishes different types of content, which are clearly distinguished:

Content Type	Description	Fact-Checking Standard
Informational articles	Explanatory content presenting established knowledge	Full verification required
Analysis and commentary	Interpretation of facts and trends	Factual basis verified; opinion clearly labeled
Interviews and attributed statements	Direct quotes and perspectives from identified individuals	Accuracy of quotation verified; views attributed to speaker
Sponsored or partner content	Content produced in association with commercial partners	Same factual standards apply; sponsorship disclosed

9. Conflicts of Interest

Authors and editors are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest relevant to the content they produce or review. Where a conflict is identified, the affected individual is recused from the relevant editorial decisions. Disclosed conflicts of interest are noted in the published content where material to the reader's assessment of the information.

10. Policy Review

This fact-checking policy is reviewed periodically to ensure it remains appropriate to our editorial practices and the evolving information environment. Updates are reflected in the revision date at the top of this document.

11. Contact

Questions regarding this policy or our fact-checking practices may be directed to:

recoveryb
contact@recoveryb.digital
recoveryb.digital