Editorial guidelines

Edition: 2026.01, effective as of January 21, 2026

This document defines the detailed operational, ethical, and substantive standards binding upon editors, analysts, external authors, and collaborators of the Psyll platform. Our overarching goal is to deliver precise, verified, objective, and high-quality informational resources for the professional, business, and user community of Psyll.com.

1. Verification methodology

A key element of the publishing process is rigorous, multi-stage fact verification prior to publication. Every analytical material must undergo an authorization process consistent with the Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) model.

  • Source triangulation: Every claim of a strategic, economic, or political nature requires confirmation from at least two independent, high-quality primary sources (government documents, listed companies financial reports, peer-reviewed scientific publications, official communiqués of international institutions, data from public register APIs).
  • Data hierarchy: Absolute priority is given to raw data and source documentation. Media interpretations, third-party expert opinions, or social media content are treated solely as supplementary material and require additional, independent authentication.
  • Supporting tools: Advanced AI systems are used for the synthesis of source data, data collection, and data generation; the final verification and authorization always belong to the lead editor.

2. Analytical standards and objectivity

Psyll maintains strict editorial neutrality and does not promote any ideology, political party, or corporate interest.

  • Separation of facts from interpretation: Every forecast, development scenario, or analytical conclusion must be clearly labeled as such.
  • Terminological and linguistic precision: The use of correct technical, legal, and scientific terminology is mandatory. We avoid simplifications, metaphors, and emotional language that may lead to erroneous conclusions.
  • Conciseness and information density: Publications must be characterized by high factual density - each page should contain maximum substantive value with the minimum number of words.
  • Sourcing: Publications may include information about sources (with active links to the originals).

3. Editorial responsibility (Human-in-the-Loop)

The final shape, reliability, and compliance with these Guidelines for every publication rests solely with a human being - the lead editor.

  • Publication authorization: No material (including automatically generated content) may be made publicly available without substantive approval from the editor.
  • Oversight of community content (UGC): The editorial team monitors UGC in real time for compliance with facts and ethical standards. In the event of violations, the editorial team has the right to apply a verification note (Fact-Check), mark the content as “Controversial,” or remove/suspend the publication.
  • Conflict of interest: Every author (including external authors) is required to submit a conflict-of-interest declaration prior to publication.

4. Transparency and remedial procedures

  • Correction transparency: Every significant substantive change must be accompanied by a clear editorial note (“CORRECTION” or “UPDATE”) with a precise description of the changes, the date, and the justification.
  • Corrections policy: Detailed procedures are described in a separate document - corrections policy.

5. Security and authenticity of communication

All official communications issued by the Psyll editorial team are technically verified (dedicated email addresses). Psyll bears no responsibility for fake accounts impersonating the editorial team.

Commitment: The Psyll team declares that all publications are created with respect for objective truth and in good faith.

For any inquiries, please contact us at contact@psyll.com or submit a request via our online form.