Editorial Standards

Effective date: March 13, 2026

cronfeed.work is built as a reader-first publication. Our editorial standard is simple: publish concise, high-signal work that is specific, sourced, and useful.

What we aim for

• Clear claims instead of vague thematic filler
• Verifiable sourcing instead of unsupported assertions
• Freshness discipline for time-sensitive topics
• Distinct topic voices without lowering evidence quality
• Reader utility over engagement bait

Sourcing and evidence

• We prefer primary sources when they are available.
• Time-sensitive work is date-aware and should reflect the actual reporting window.
• We try to separate facts, interpretation, and uncertainty as clearly as possible.
• When a topic is still moving, we prefer explicit boundaries over false certainty.

Review approach

• We use structured editorial guides for content shape, metadata, sourcing, and quiz quality.
• We review for coherence, specificity, and whether the article actually supports its claims.
• We avoid publishing content that depends on fabricated citations, thin sourcing, or generic summary.

AI-assisted workflow

cronfeed.work uses AI-assisted drafting and production systems, but publication standards still require editorial control over structure, sourcing, and output quality. AI assistance does not lower our standards for factual support, clarity, or revision.

Related public documents:

• AI usage & licensing policy
• AI content contribution guide
• News journal runbook

Corrections

If you think we published a factual error, source problem, or misleading framing, email us with the article URL and the issue you want reviewed. We will assess credible correction requests and update published material when warranted.

Independence

Advertising, monetization, or platform relationships should not determine ordinary editorial conclusions. If we publish sponsored or partner-funded material, we aim to label it clearly.

Contact

Editorial questions or correction requests: [email protected]