Editorial Policy

This page sets out how Daily AI Brief decides what to publish, how claims are checked, where AI fits into the process, and what happens when we get something wrong. We publish it so you can judge our work by a standard we have committed to in advance.

Independence

Editorial decisions are made by the publisher and responsible editors. No advertiser, sponsor, affiliate partner, investor or vendor gets to choose what we cover, approve an article before publication, or have a critical passage removed.

If a commercial relationship exists with a company we are writing about, we disclose it inside the article, not only on a policy page. How the publication earns money is set out in the Affiliate Disclosure.

Sourcing

Factual claims are traceable. Where an article draws on outside material, it carries a list of the sources it relies on, so you can check the original rather than take our word for it.

• We prefer primary sources — the paper, the changelog, the filing, the repository, the vendor's own documentation — over coverage of them.
• When we report someone else's scoop, we say so and link to it.
• Benchmarks and pricing are cited to the document that states them, with the date we checked.
• We do not publish a claim we could not point to a source for.

Authorship and accountability

Every article carries a named author and a publication date. A person is accountable for what appears under their name. Where an article has been substantially revised after publication, the revision date is shown alongside the original date.

How we use AI

AI tools may assist the editorial process, but responsibility remains with the human author.

Permitted uses of AI tools:

• searching and summarising long documents, papers and transcripts so an editor can find what matters;
• transcribing interviews and recorded talks;
• drafting assistance — suggesting structure, tightening wording, catching clumsy sentences;
• routine code and tooling that supports the publication.

Where we do not:

• We do not publish a machine-generated article without a human editor reading, verifying and taking responsibility for it.
• We do not let a model be the source of a factual claim. If AI surfaces a fact, we verify it against the primary source before it is published.
• We do not generate quotes, statistics, benchmarks or citations. A quote appears only if someone actually said it.
• We do not use AI-generated imagery to depict real events or real people as though photographed.

AI systems are fluent and confidently wrong. Treating one as a research assistant whose work must be checked — rather than as an author — is the only use of it we consider compatible with publishing.

Reviews and comparisons

When we review a tool, we say how we tested it, on what, and for how long. We state the version and the date, because both age quickly. We disclose whether access was purchased, free, or provided by the vendor — and vendor-provided access never comes with review approval attached.

Rankings reflect our judgement against criteria we state in the article. They are opinion, as the Disclaimer explains, and we revisit them as products change.

Corrections

We will get things wrong. What matters is what happens next.

• Factual errors are corrected as soon as we can verify the correct position.
• Significant corrections — anything that changes the meaning of a story — are noted on the article itself, saying what was wrong and when it was fixed. We do not quietly rewrite history.
• Minor fixes — a typo, a broken link, a misspelled name that does not alter the substance — are made without a note.
• Substantial revisions carry an updated date, so you can see the piece has changed.
• We do not delete an article to make an error disappear. If a piece must be withdrawn, we say so and explain why.

To request a correction, use the contact page. Tell us the article, the passage, and what the correct position is — ideally with a source. We aim to respond within five working days.

Right of reply

If we publish criticism of a company, a product or a person, and they tell us we have misrepresented them, we will consider their response seriously and publish a correction or clarification where it is warranted.

Anonymous sources

We prefer named sources. We grant anonymity only where the information is in the public interest and the source faces a real risk — retaliation at work, for example — from being named. Where we rely on an anonymous source we say why anonymity was granted, and we seek corroboration before publishing.

Conflicts of interest

Writers disclose to the editor any financial holding, employment, consulting relationship or personal connection relevant to a story. Where a conflict cannot be avoided, it is disclosed in the article. Where it is serious, someone else writes the piece.

Reader contributions

We welcome tips and corrections through the contact page. We verify what we receive before acting on it, and we protect the identity of people who ask for it. What happens to the message you send is covered by the Privacy Policy.

Changes to this policy

If our practices change, this page changes with them, and the "last updated" date at the top will show when.