Editorial Policy

This policy describes the standards we use when creating and maintaining educational content. It also explains how AI may assist, what readers should expect from sources and updates, and how to report a correction.

Last updated: July 18, 2026

1. How Our Content Is Created

Content may combine original editorial work, public-source research, and AI-assisted drafting or organization.

AI-assisted work — may help organize research, compare drafts, or improve clarity; it is not an authoritative source
Editorial review — checks reader usefulness, internal consistency, source fit, risky claims, and disclosure needs

Review depth varies by risk. Legal, tax, credit, investment, and product-specific claims require greater sourcing and more cautious language than general educational explanations.

2. Author Qualifications

Pages currently use publisher-level attribution unless a contributor record is documented well enough to support a named profile. We do not imply that every page was written or reviewed by a CFP, CPA, attorney, or other credentialed professional.

A named author, reviewer, credential, or review date will appear only when the corresponding record applies to that page. Use an appropriately licensed professional for individualized financial, legal, tax, credit, or investment advice.

Learn more about our team and standards

3. Fact-Checking Process

Time-sensitive claims are checked against relevant primary sources when those sources are reasonably available
Statistics should identify the publisher, measured population, period, and limitation instead of relying on a number alone
Examples and scenarios must be labeled as verified, illustrative, hypothetical, or composite
Preferred sources include statutes, regulators, government publications, peer-reviewed research, and official provider documentation

4. AI Ethics Review

When AI assists with content, the editorial review focuses on three questions:

Intent Clarity

Is the purpose of the content supportive, respectful, and free of manipulation?

Vulnerability Safeguard

Does the content avoid exploiting emotional, financial, or cognitive vulnerabilities?

Transparency Check

Is it clear what the content intends to suggest, and how the system arrived at it?

AI output must not be treated as evidence. It must not invent people, credentials, quotations, testimonials, research findings, or sources. A human publisher or editor decides whether a draft is published; that approval is not the same as independent expert, fact-check, or legal review. Readers can report a suspected error for review.

5. Content Updates & Revisions

Review priority is based on reader risk, traffic, and how quickly the subject can change
Legal, tax, credit, investment, rate, and product information receives a higher freshness priority
Material corrections should explain what changed when the change affects a reader's decision
Time-sensitive pages should display a last-reviewed date and direct source links

6. Affiliate & Advertising Disclosure

Some links may lead to partners or offers for which Better Financials Health may receive compensation
Compensation and placement should be disclosed where they could affect how a reader interprets an offer
Paid placement must not be described as independent evidence that a product is suitable for a reader
Advertisements are clearly labeled and do not influence editorial content
Readers should be able to distinguish educational content, advertising, and compensated links

Read the standalone Advertising Disclosure for placement, privacy, and eligibility details.

7. Trust & Transparency

A policy is useful only when published pages follow it. If a page lacks a source, contains an outdated figure, or presents an illustrative story as real, readers can request a correction.

If you have questions, feedback, or believe any piece of content does not meet these standards, please contact us directly at editor@betterfinancialshealth.com.