Our editorial policy is to use independent, AI-assisted research to answer one specific reader question per article. AI may support planning, drafting, and synthesis, but its output is not evidence. We do not invent expertise, interviews, quotations, attendance, partnerships, certifications, match results, or source verification.
Factual claims and statistics should be checked against accessible sources as available, prioritizing official competition rules, schedules, statistical records, and original statements. Articles identify the sources supporting material claims and state the season, date range, units, and relevant limitations of numerical comparisons. If a source cannot be accessed or a claim cannot be established, that limitation must be disclosed and unsupported certainty removed. We do not describe an unavailable source as verified.
Analysis distinguishes established facts from interpretation and conditional scenarios. Injury information, roster status, eligibility, competition formats, and broadcast availability require clear date and jurisdiction or competition context where relevant. A matchup preview explains factors and uncertainty without guaranteeing a result. Historical comparisons account for rule changes, pace, and differences in available data.
Images require a documented basis for use, with author and source credits in plain text where applicable. Generated conceptual pictures must be visibly labeled AI-generated conceptual illustration. They must not be presented as photographs of actual games, documentary evidence, official graphics, or proof of authorization. Tactical diagrams and charts should explain their assumptions and data sources.
Readers can report errors through the contact form. Substantive corrections should identify what changed and when, while update dates should reflect meaningful revisions rather than routine page maintenance.