Core Editorial Principles
Our editorial policy is built around four principles: accuracy over speed, explicit uncertainty, source traceability, and correction visibility. Accuracy over speed means we do not label claims as confirmed unless they meet minimum corroboration standards. Explicit uncertainty means scenario language must clearly communicate confidence level and what could invalidate the current interpretation. Source traceability means readers should be able to identify the category of evidence supporting key claims. Correction visibility means material changes are reflected in page metadata and revision timestamps.
These principles are especially important for conflict coverage because narrative velocity can outrun evidence quality. We design for restraint: we would rather publish a narrower but defensible claim than a broad speculative claim with weak support.
Fact-Checking and Verification Workflow
Every substantive update passes through a two-stage check. Stage one verifies source integrity: publication credibility, source chain clarity, and timestamp validity. Stage two verifies claim integrity: whether the source supports the exact wording used in the page. If a source supports only part of a claim, the unsupported segment is removed or labeled provisional. For sensitive claims, we require at least two independent confirmations from high-trust categories before upgrading confidence labels.
When evidence is partial, we avoid definitive verbs and use conditional structure. This prevents false certainty and makes later corrections less disruptive to reader trust.
Source Weighting Policy
We rank sources by reliability tier. Tier 1 includes official institutions and direct primary publications. Tier 2 includes major wire services with established correction protocols. Tier 3 includes specialized research organizations and think tanks that provide contextual depth but may vary in assumptions. Tier 4 includes commentary and secondary amplification channels that are never sufficient alone for confirmation. Source tier affects confidence tags and how prominently a claim can be surfaced in headlines.
This hierarchy is not ideological; it is procedural. The goal is to reduce inconsistency in fast update cycles and preserve analytical comparability across pages.
Corrections Policy
If a factual error is identified, we apply one of three correction levels. Minor language clarifications are silently fixed when meaning is unchanged. Material factual corrections update the page content, metadata timestamps, and schema dateModified fields. Structural corrections that alter interpretation may also include an editor note inside the article body. All correction requests are reviewed via editorial@iranwarlog.com.
We do not delete inaccurate pages to hide mistakes. We revise them transparently so historical context remains auditable.
Conflicts, Independence, and AI Use
We do not accept paid placement in editorial conclusions. Sponsored or promotional relationships, if introduced later, will be labeled clearly and separated from analysis pages. Team members must disclose material conflicts that could affect framing.
Automation and AI tools may assist drafting, formatting, and code maintenance, but final publication decisions follow human editorial review against this policy and the published methodology framework. AI outputs are treated as draft artifacts, not authority sources.
Implementation Consistency
Editorial standards are tied to technical implementation: canonical tags, schema consistency, timestamp accuracy, and sitemap freshness. This linkage matters because trust is not only linguistic; it is also machine-readable. If a page is corrected, metadata should reflect that correction so search engines and users see the same truth state.