Editorial standards, sourcing expectations, and correction policy for Armstrong Journal.
These are the rules behind what gets published, how stories are sourced, and what happens when a page needs clarification or correction.
Official sites, docs, company pages, established reporting
No deposit language, no earnings claims, no invented testing
Clarify or remove weak claims when verification is missing
Stories should rely on publicly accessible materials such as official websites, help centers, pricing pages, documentation, press releases, product pages, filings, or reporting from established publishers.
If a company does not make a detail public, the article should say that directly rather than filling the gap with guesswork.
Review-format pages are written as reporting and analysis, not as endorsements. They are built to describe positioning, transparency, support, visible documentation, and the public trust signals a reader can inspect for themselves.
The desk does not publish deposit guidance, guaranteed returns, earnings promises, or other claims that would turn reporting into hype.
When a company changes its public materials or a point becomes outdated, the preferred fix is a clearer update with a fresher source trail.
If a statement cannot be verified after publication, it should be narrowed, clarified, or removed.