AI assistance and human review

Human direction and responsibility

Human direction shaped the site's purpose, reference scenario, methodology and editorial standards. Responsibility for the assumptions and conclusions remains with the people behind the work. Page-level author and editor assignments identify those roles when recorded.

The author role covers the stated business scope, selected assumptions and conclusions. The editor role covers the recorded check of that work. When one person holds both roles, the record identifies that arrangement without presenting it as an independent review.

How we use AI

AI helps us find relevant sources, organize research notes and prepare explanations of business assumptions and financial calculations. It also helps us identify inconsistencies and questions that need further investigation.

We link the original references and label the inputs they support. AI output, a working URL and a successful calculation each have a different role: none independently establishes a local wage, demand forecast, safe workload or completed human review.

What the human-review scope records

The human-review record identifies the work documented for a particular page and version. Its scope distinguishes the following areas, with the completed checks stated alongside the reviewer and date.

• Source support covers the original material, its period, geography, units and operating scope, and the exact claim it supports.
• Assumptions and capacity cover the basis for prices, wages, staffing, throughput and ranges, with targets distinguished from observed facts.
• Financial logic covers linked monthly and annual views, owner labor and cost allocations, and the disclosure of separately specified scenarios.
• Conclusions cover the connection between claims and evidence, including uncertainty, contrary evidence and the limits of the analysis.
• Reader usefulness covers the question the page answers and the clarity and consistency of its sources, calculations, limitations and availability statements.

What a review label means

A completed-review label identifies a recorded reviewer, date and scope for the version examined. An author assignment identifies responsibility; it does not by itself establish that the assigned person accepted every passage or completed an independent review.

Research dates, content updates and automated checks have separate meanings. The page shows its current review state, including a missing review or an earlier review that no longer covers changed material. Profile details do not extend the review scope.

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.

Contributor profiles present the identity, publication role and professional details recorded for that contributor. A research topic is not a credential or evidence of local fieldwork. Source notes identify any documented first-hand observation separately from published context and modeled assumptions.

Corrections and changed assumptions

We maintain source, input and calculation changes in the common business record and shared calculation logic. The review label stays tied to the version and scope actually checked; material changes leave the revised page awaiting a current human review. The correction guidance explains how readers report a concern.