Editorial policy

This page explains how guides and explanatory content are planned, reviewed, and corrected so that readers can see the difference between editorial judgment, public facts, and school-supplied claims.

Summary points

Editorial independence: Guide structure, comparison framing, and wording are created by the editorial layer rather than copied from school marketing pages.
Review standard: Every guide should show an author label, an editor label, methodology context, source-scope limits, and an update date when available.
Correction path: Readers and schools can flag outdated or unclear statements through the support and legal/privacy channels shown in the footer and trust pages.

How guides are written

Guide pages are designed around high-intent family questions such as curriculum comparison, shortlist planning, and relocation timing. They are not intended to promise admission outcomes.

Editors may add comparison tables, checklists, related school links, and methodology notes so that the article remains decision-support content rather than generic marketing copy.

How conflicts are handled

If a school profile can also appear in partner workflows, editorial text should still describe limits, trade-offs, and context rather than acting as a guaranteed endorsement.

Do not present partner visibility as a ranking advantage
Do not hide obvious fit limits or transition concerns
Keep guide text separate from conversion-oriented CTAs