Research, review and corrections policy

The claim determines the research required.

A title promising state costs and revenue requires evidence for both. A wage-only adjustment of a common scenario cannot be promoted as a completed local business study. A national business guide can explain a format without claiming local quotes or observed sales.

State research methodology v1 was approved by the owner on September 6, 2026. Its exact document is preserved and checked against the approval record on every build. Each business-state study must follow that version. Method approval does not certify the earlier reference scenarios, and missing local evidence cannot be replaced with shared commercial constants. Read the approved standard and its publication requirements.

Keep three kinds of information separate.

Use evidence that matches the decision.

Prefer original official data, responsible agency material and scoped first-hand commercial evidence. Several pages repeating one upstream source are not independent confirmation. Preserve contradictory evidence and explain differences in activity, geography, period and units.

Opening payments, recurring costs, revenue, paid labor and required permissions need separate supporting work. Identical values across states are acceptable only where their evidence supports reuse. Inventing differences is as misleading as hiding shared assumptions.

Technical checks and content review are separate.

Technical checks cover calculations, records, routes, metadata and generated files. Content review must assess the actual claim, evidence fit, material omissions, decision usefulness and exact published version. Word count, heading count and number of pages do not prove research completeness.

Presenting a page as completed state research requires the approved methodology, supported material inputs, traceable claims, recorded exact-content review and accountable editorial responsibility. The current reference pages remain indexable with their evidence limits disclosed.

How quality control works.

Editorial quality controls include source tracing, calculation checks, evidence-scope review, exact-version decisions and correction records. Human-review labels appear only on assessments covered by a recorded decision. No investigator, interview, expert endorsement or source observation may be invented.

Correct the claim and its consequences.

For site support, policy questions and research corrections, email [email protected]. Include the page URL and enough detail to identify the question or claim.

Check a reported issue against the exact published source and version. A material input change requires reviewing affected financial outputs, narrative, comparisons and browser-local exports. Keep a record of what changed, why, its evidence and the version affected. Source observation dates remain distinct from editing dates.

Prepare a correction · Publisher and scope · Current calculation definitions

Responsibility, attribution and review.

Editorial contacts connect an article’s subject with a named team member’s coverage. A byline identifies recorded authorship. A named review identifies a completed check by that person. These are distinct responsibilities.

“Human reviewed” identifies an assessment covered by a recorded human decision. A changed conclusion must be checked with its evidence and calculations. An assessment review does not by itself certify the whole article as a local feasibility study.

Meet the editorial team · Submit a correction by email.