Editorial Standards
How co5 Editorial builds and reviews content.
This page explains the current beta-stage editorial method for guides, case studies, comparisons, and analysis pages.
Key points
- Published pages must have a clear query intent, one primary CTA, and explicit editorial ownership.
- Case studies and comparisons are sourced from public evidence and framed through disclosed evaluation criteria.
- Synthetic visuals and composite examples must be handled as editorial aids, not as fake proof or fake authorship.
How pieces are produced
The site publishes under co5 Editorial. Drafting may involve internal research synthesis and AI-assisted drafting, but the published standard is still human-directed editorial judgment over structure, sourcing, and final claims.
Every page is expected to have a clear query intent, a single conversion path, a summary, publication dates, and an explicit editorial owner.
How case studies and comparisons are handled
Historical case studies are built from public reporting, official releases, and public records where available. If a financial impact is uncertain, the page should say so rather than imply a number with false precision.
Comparison pages are written from a disclosed evaluation lens. The goal is not fake neutrality. The goal is fair criteria, explicit tradeoffs, and a clear description of who each option fits.
How AI and composites are disclosed
AI-generated imagery, diagrams, or draft support should not imply firsthand reporting or documentary evidence. When a visual is synthetic, it should behave like editorial illustration, not fake proof.
If fictional composites are used inside examples, they must be labeled as composites. The site does not publish fabricated experts, fabricated reviewers, or fake autobiographical authority.