Standards and corrections

Editorial Policy

How Limist handles scoring independence, product updates, corrections and platform responses.

Standards

How the index stays useful.

Independence

Commercial access, referral arrangements or platform outreach must not guarantee coverage or a favorable score. Material relationships should be disclosed on the relevant page.

Corrections

Factual corrections are evaluated against current primary sources. A material correction should update the written rationale, score and review date together when each is affected.

Review dates

A date changes only after a meaningful recheck. Cosmetic edits, typography changes and link maintenance do not count as a substantive product review.

Right of response

Platforms can submit product evidence, correction requests and methodological objections. Limist may revise a page when the evidence changes the assessment, while retaining editorial control over conclusions.

Scoring disagreements

A platform may disagree with the weight Limist gives moderation, remote scope or candidate effort. Interpretive disagreement is not automatically a factual error. We address it by making the method, evidence and tradeoff visible.

Safety language

Limist avoids turning a limited sample or isolated report into a broad allegation. Warnings should describe a reproducible product signal, state the scope and distinguish candidate caution from a claim of platform wrongdoing.

Correction workflow

Evidence first, then interpretation.

When a request arrives, editors identify whether it concerns a verifiable fact, a product change, a broken source or an interpretive conclusion. Current primary evidence is reviewed before the affected page is changed.

A material correction should preserve internal consistency. If new evidence changes the reason for a score, the number, rationale and review date are considered together. Minor wording or accessibility fixes do not imply that the underlying product was re-reviewed.