Editorial policy

What ACI treats as a fact, what it treats as a company’s own statement, and what it refuses to publish at all.

Five things kept apart

Most of the harm a directory can do comes from blending these together. ACI keeps them separate in the data model, not only in presentation:

Sourced fact

Supported by a stored source that ACI reviewed, with the date it was observed.

Company statement

Said by the company, attributed to it, and not thereby verified. Confirmation by the subject is evidence of who said it, not that it is so.

Editorial classification

ACI’s own categorisation — which use case an offering serves, which market it is available in. Traceable to the claims it rests on.

Generated explanation

Text assembled from published claims. It may only use what is already recorded, must preserve qualification, negative fit and uncertainty, must never invent a missing detail, and must be reproducible from the stored inputs.

Paid relationship

Disclosed where it appears, kept out of eligibility and fit computation entirely. See the advertising disclosure.

What a claim must carry

A material claim is attached to the right organization or offering, narrow enough to verify, qualified by market or scope where that matters, backed by at least one stored source, assigned a verification status and an observed date — and correctable through a visible process. A statement that cannot meet this is not published as a fact.

Claims ACI holds back

Some categories carry enough consequence that a wrong entry is not merely embarrassing: legal compliance, medical suitability, regulated approvals, financial performance, and security certifications. These require stricter review, and where no category-specific policy exists yet they are excluded rather than published cautiously.

Comparison

ACI compares offerings that serve the same purpose, on characteristics that are material, relevant, verifiable and representative, and retains the evidence behind any comparative statement. It avoids confusion between organizations, avoids disparagement, and does not publish superiority claims — no “best”, no winner, no ranking. Where offerings differ, the record shows the documented difference and its evidence.

Corrections

The correction route is open to anyone, not only to the company described, and it is free. The existing record and its evidence are preserved rather than overwritten, decisions are documented, and dependent explanations are updated when an underlying claim changes — how to submit one.

Accountability

Responsible for editorial content

[to be supplied by the operator: the named signatory of this policy]

Until that name exists, this policy describes an intention rather than an accountable commitment — which is precisely why it cannot be published as it stands.