How we verify what we publish.
AI governance is a field where inaccuracy has real consequences — wrong regulatory dates, misinterpreted obligations, or outdated guidance can lead organisations to make compliance decisions based on incorrect information. We take verification seriously.
Primary source verification
Every regulatory fact — dates, penalty amounts, article numbers, regulator names — is verified against the primary source: the legislation itself, the regulator's official publication, or the standards body's documentation. We cite these sources directly in our articles so readers can verify independently.
No copied content
All content is original. We do not reproduce content from law firms, consultancies, competitors, or other publications. We research the same primary sources and produce our own analysis, framing, and practical guidance. Our content is protected by copyright.
Human editorial review
Content is reviewed for factual accuracy, regulatory currency, practical relevance, and clarity before publication. AI tools are used to assist with research and drafting, but editorial judgment, verification, and quality assurance are human-led.
Ongoing maintenance
AI regulation is evolving continuously. Articles are reviewed and updated when the regulations they cover change. Updated articles carry the revision date. We monitor regulatory publications from APRA, ASIC, OAIC, ICO, EU Commission, NIST, MAS, PDPC, and other regulators for material developments.
Framework alignment
Our content is aligned with and references established international standards and frameworks:
Corrections and updates
If you identify an error, outdated information, or a factual claim that needs correction in any of our articles, please contact us. We investigate all reported issues and publish corrections promptly. Maintaining accuracy is more important to us than maintaining the appearance of never being wrong.