Editorial Policy

This policy defines how we publish, review, and update content so recommendations stay useful, transparent, and accountable.

Quality Rules

Last updated: February 16, 2026

  • Every guide must include practical implementation steps and measurable decision criteria.
  • High-impact claims must include a source link and short relevance note.
  • Calculator assumptions are reviewed against benchmark data on a recurring cadence.
  • Content that cannot be validated is removed or reframed as directional guidance.

Review Workflow

  1. 1. Draft content is mapped to a specific decision problem (cost, duration, attendee mix, or cadence).
  2. 2. Evidence and source links are attached directly to the guide section they support.
  3. 3. Editorial review verifies clarity, scope limits, and actionable next steps.
  4. 4. Methodology review checks formula assumptions and benchmark alignment.
  5. 5. Pages are revisited when update triggers are met.

Update Triggers

  • Benchmark changes in labor-cost data
  • Evidence that a recommendation no longer improves decision quality
  • User feedback identifying unclear or non-actionable guidance
  • Material changes in remote/hybrid collaboration practices

Authorship and Accountability

Content responsibilities are published on the Authors page. We separate editorial quality checks from methodology checks to reduce bias and improve traceability.

For formulas and benchmark assumptions, see Methodology.