This page lists the authoritative sources Tech Tool Guide relies on to
fact-check the claims in its articles. It applies to every article on this
site, in combination with the Editorial
Policy.
Standards we hold sources to
A source counts as authoritative when it meets one or more of these criteria:
-
It is a standards body, professional association, or government agency
with recognized authority in the subject. -
It is peer-reviewed research published in a reputable venue.
-
It is a primary source — a rulebook, a piece of official documentation,
a designer or maker’s own published statement, a regulatory filing. -
It is an established, editorially-independent trade publication with a
track record of accurate reporting in the field.
Individual bloggers, forum posts, and unverified social-media claims are not
treated as authoritative on their own. They may be cited when attributed
transparently (“a user on the r/coffee subreddit reports…”) but do
not carry the weight of the sources listed below.
Authoritative sources for software tools for operators
-
Official vendor documentation and product changelogs — the primary source for feature capabilities, API behavior, and pricing.
-
Vendor pricing pages captured at the time of writing — prices change without notice; every quoted price includes the observation date.
-
Public SEC filings, S-1s, and investor letters — for revenue, funding, and business-model claims about public companies.
-
Established trade publications (TechCrunch, The Information, Stratechery, a16z research) — when representing industry analysis or reporting on private-company news.
What we do when sources disagree
If two authoritative sources disagree on a factual point, the article says
so explicitly, names both positions, and explains which one we’re following
and why. We do not launder disagreements into a single-voice answer that
pretends the disagreement doesn’t exist.
What we do when we cannot find a source
If we cannot find an authoritative source for a claim, we either drop the
claim, mark it clearly as speculation or personal observation, or replace it
with a weaker claim that we can source. Our editorial process treats
“we’re not sure” as an acceptable answer; “we sound sure but
made it up” is not.
Reporting a factual error
Found something we got wrong? Email
info.verse.real@gmail.com with the article URL, the
specific claim, and the source that shows the correct answer. Corrections are
handled per the Editorial Policy.