No purchased truth.

Reviewer selection

• Publish the reviewer’s name, relevant credentials or lived expertise, review scope, compensation status, and declared conflicts with consent.
• Select for the actual claim domain rather than general prestige; include affected-community and disability-led expertise where rights or access are involved.
• Do not treat an employee, investor, customer, sponsor, source author, or directly supervised collaborator as independent for the affected claim.

Review process

• Provide the exact claim, sources, locators, assumptions, counterevidence, transfer limits, and proposed evidence dimensions.
• Record approve, revise, contest, or reject at claim level; silence and event attendance never count as review.
• Publish material minority findings and the editor’s reasoned response.
• High-consequence medical, reproductive, nuclear, radiation, cybersecurity, governance, and dual-use claims require two qualified independent reviewers with complementary scopes.
• A reviewer may recuse at any time; unresolved conflicts or missing expertise block the reviewed label.

Appeal and correction

• A correction receives a reference identifier and triage record; safety-critical allegations receive priority.
• A material editorial decision may be appealed to a reviewer not involved in the original decision once such a panel exists.
• Substantive reversals, unresolved disputes, and removed conclusions receive a dated public record that protects reporter privacy.
• No sponsor, customer, founder, or reviewer may purchase, suppress, or unilaterally assign an evidence grade.

Publication gate

Public 1.0 requires named review coverage across every Academy track, documented high-consequence two-person review, a material-corrections log, reviewer conflict records, and an operating appeal path.