Editorial Policy

Evidence and attribution

Factual claims should be supported by identifiable sources. Manufacturer specifications, retailer information, editorial opinions, and hands-on observations should be distinguished. A product recommendation should not imply a test that is not documented.

Testing and product sourcing

Firsthand claims need the reviewer, product version, dates, conditions, and supporting observations. Whether a unit was purchased, borrowed, or supplied should be disclosed for that review. We do not make a blanket claim that every product on this site was purchased or tested.

Independence and commercial links

Editorial recommendations should be based on relevant evidence and reader needs, rather than commission rates. Affiliate links and advertising should be identifiable. See the affiliate disclosure for how these links work.

Ratings, prices, and availability

Ratings and review counts need a stated source and context. We should not present an editorial score as a customer rating. Prices and stock status can change; the retailer is the place to confirm current purchase terms. Unknown product prices should not be published as zero-dollar offers.

AI-assisted content

AI-generated wording is not evidence of product use, measurements, or independent verification. Regardless of how text is drafted, factual claims need supporting sources, and a description of testing must refer to documented work.

Corrections and review dates

A modification date records a content edit, not a new hands-on test or a guarantee that every offer is current. There is no automatic promise that an older review is already being updated. Send corrections with the article URL and relevant evidence to info@artdevivrecoffee.com.

Current limitations

These standards do not certify every historical article as independently verified. Existing product-specific testing and rating claims may still need evidence or correction. Our review methodology explains that distinction.

Last updated: September 14, 2026