AI assistance and human review

What people are responsible for

Human contributors define the business scope, model methodology, cost classifications, evidence standards and editorial judgment. The author is responsible for selecting and explaining assumptions and for the conclusions published under their name.

The responsible editor checks the work before approving publication. The same person may act as author and editor if that is the actual arrangement; this is not described as an independent review.

How AI assists the work

AI may help discover relevant sources, organize research notes, extract candidate facts, compare operating formats, prepare calculation code, and draft or edit English explanations. It can also help identify inconsistent units, missing evidence and questions for further investigation.

An AI-generated statement is not a source. Candidate facts must be checked against the cited original material. AI cannot provide first-hand operating experience, confirm a local quote, establish demand or approve an editorial conclusion.

What a human review should cover

The review scope is stated on the individual page. Our publication standard calls for the following checks where applicable.

• Source support: open the original source and check what it supports, including period, geography, units and operating scope.
• Assumptions and capacity: explain chosen prices, wages, staffing, throughput and ranges; distinguish targets from observed facts.
• Financial logic: reconcile linked monthly and annual views, allocate owner labor and other costs once, and disclose separate scenarios.
• Conclusions: test claims against the evidence, explain uncertainty and counterexamples, and remove unsupported promises.
• Reader usefulness: check that the page answers a distinct question and that its sources, calculations, limitations and availability statements are visible and consistent.

What a review label means

A completed human review is shown only with the reviewer, review date and scope recorded for that page. Updating a date, running automated tests or adding an author profile does not create a completed review.

A research record date describes the underlying material. It is not a named human sign-off. Material without a completed review record remains a preview for editorial purposes.

What the process does not establish

Review does not turn a conditional scenario into a measured industry average, prove local customer demand or guarantee business results. Cash sufficiency, taxes, financing and investment payback require the relevant additional evidence and schedules.

We do not invent author identities, qualifications, interviews, field observations or customer outcomes to make a page appear authoritative. Contributor biographies describe confirmed professional information.

Corrections and changed assumptions

Material source, input or calculation changes should be reviewed and reflected in the common business record. The review label must continue to describe the version and scope that were actually checked. Readers can identify a concern using the correction guidance.