Editorial Policy

How the editorial process works in practice

The editorial process is designed to reduce avoidable error while keeping the guides understandable for non-specialists. Different subjects carry different levels of risk, so review effort is prioritised rather than applied as a simple fixed schedule to every page.

Review priority and frequency

Pages are treated as higher priority when they contain tax thresholds, filing deadlines, statutory duties, employment obligations, regulated financial topics, compulsory insurance requirements or software rules linked to government systems. These pages may be reviewed when a material announcement is made, when an official source changes, or as part of a scheduled quality review. Stable explanatory pages may be reviewed less frequently.

A page is not considered current merely because its wording still reads well. Editors should check whether the official source, date, threshold, regulator, process or linked service has changed. Where a rule is expected to change, the article should use a specific effective date rather than relying only on words such as “currently” or “soon”.

Evidence hierarchy

Primary evidence is preferred for legal requirements and volatile facts. This usually means legislation, GOV.UK, HM Revenue & Customs, Companies House, Acas, the Information Commissioner’s Office, the Health and Safety Executive, the Financial Conduct Authority or another responsible public authority. Official manuals and consultations can be useful where their status is made clear.

Professional bodies and established industry organisations may provide helpful interpretation or operational context. Commercial websites may support examples, product descriptions or market context, but should not be the sole evidence for a legal duty, tax threshold, regulatory status or compulsory requirement.

Fact checking and presentation

• Important figures, dates and deadlines should be checked against the cited source.
• Legal requirements should not be presented as universal where exemptions or jurisdictional differences may apply.
• Examples should be identified as simplified illustrations rather than quotations or guaranteed outcomes.
• Advice-dependent questions should be framed as decision factors, not personalised conclusions.
• Links should point readers to the most relevant official page rather than only to a general homepage.

Human editorial control and automated tools

Automated tools may assist with outlining, comparison, formatting, link checking, identifying inconsistencies or drafting an initial explanation. They do not replace editorial judgment. Material statements should be checked against reliable evidence, and automated output should not be cited as an authority. Editors remain responsible for deciding what is published, what needs qualification and what should be removed.

Corrections, updates and version control

When a material error is verified, the page should be corrected promptly. The editor should consider whether the previous wording could have affected a reader’s filing, payment, legal right or significant business decision. Where appropriate, the page may explain the correction or clarify the date from which a new rule applies.

Routine changes such as spelling, broken formatting, clearer headings or replacement of an obsolete link may be made without a public correction note. Substantive updates should refresh the reviewed date only when the page has received a meaningful editorial check rather than a cosmetic edit.

Commercial independence and conflicts

Advertising, sponsorship, affiliate arrangements or relationships with service providers must not determine an editorial conclusion. Paid placements should be identifiable as advertising. A provider should not be described as suitable for a reader without a proper assessment of that reader’s circumstances, and regulated permissions should be checked where relevant.

Reader challenges and accountability

Readers may challenge a statement or request clarification through the Contact page. A challenge is assessed against the available evidence, not the commercial interests of an advertiser or the confidence of the original wording. Where reliable sources disagree, the article should explain the uncertainty or scope of the disagreement rather than presenting one interpretation as settled fact.