CookDevices Editorial Policy and Corrections Standards
CookDevices publishes educational guidance about kitchen appliance types, specifications, suitability, use, and care. This policy sets standards for factual claims, author attribution, corrections, and updates. It does not describe a hands-on appliance evaluation program.
What This Policy Covers
Our editorial standards apply to explanations of appliance categories and the practical decisions they support. Claims must stay within the product class, conditions, and evidence that the source actually describes.
Product and Category Information
Guides may explain operating principles, configurations, dimensions, capacity, compatibility, safety information, and routine maintenance. A feature documented for one design is not treated as a property of every appliance in its category.
Comparisons and Practical Advice
We frame comparisons around the task, available space, required connections, working capacity, and upkeep. A published specification can help explain those tradeoffs, but it does not by itself demonstrate better food quality, faster operation, or a longer service life.
Claims About Firsthand Experience
CookDevices does not operate or measure finished appliances for these guides. Manufacturer documents, technical publications, official guidance, and individual user accounts are not presented as observations made by CookDevices. We do not assign original performance results or hands-on review scores to equipment we have not evaluated directly.
Standards for Sources and Claims
The source must match the fact being stated. Public safety guidance, manufacturer specifications, technical explanations, and user experiences answer different questions. We do not treat one type of source as proof of a claim that requires another.
| Claim in a guide | Appropriate supporting information | Editorial limit |
|---|---|---|
| Recall or food-safety requirement | Notice or guidance from the responsible public authority | Applies only to the products, foods, and conditions specified |
| Dimensions, connections, or maintenance instructions | Relevant manufacturer manual or specification sheet | Describes that equipment or design, not every appliance in its category |
| Energy use or efficiency label | Official program definition, eligible product class, and stated assumptions | Does not establish cooking quality or a household's exact operating cost |
| Operating principle or technical distinction | Technical publication with clear authorship and scope, supported where relevant by manufacturer documentation | Does not establish unreported performance results for every design |
| User complaint or owner experience | Account with enough context to understand the reported issue and possible incentives | Does not establish a typical outcome, failure rate, or service life |
For numerical claims, we check units, definitions, and operating conditions. If apparently credible sources disagree, we look for differences in product class, document version, or measurement basis. An unresolved conflict is a reason to narrow or omit the claim, not to average incompatible statements.
Authorship and Editorial Responsibility
An article's accuracy depends on the evidence behind its claims, not on a byline or a claimed credential. Author and reviewer credits must identify real contributors and accurately describe their roles.
Author Attribution
A named author is credited only when their identity and contribution can be confirmed. A byline must not imply professional qualifications, certifications, or firsthand appliance experience that the contributor does not have.
Editorial and Technical Review
A review credit is appropriate only when that review actually occurred. Its description must distinguish fact-checking, specialist input, and copy editing; these activities are not interchangeable endorsements of every claim in an article.
Responsibility for Accuracy
The same standards for evidence and scope apply whether or not a guide has a named byline. If reliable support is missing, the claim must be qualified or removed. Adding a reviewer title cannot make an unsupported statement accurate.
Corrections and Clarifications
An error that changes a guide's meaning, safety advice, or selection logic calls for a factual correction. Missing context may call for a clarification; genuinely new information calls for an update. The distinction depends on what changed, not how small the edit looks.
Factual Corrections
When a claim is wrong, correct or remove it in the article. Check related tables, comparisons, and conclusions that relied on the original statement, especially when the error involves a unit, capacity, compatibility requirement, or safety instruction.
Clarifications
If a statement is supportable but incomplete, add the conditions needed to interpret it accurately. For example, an instruction limited to one appliance configuration should not read like a rule for an entire product category.
Making Material Changes Clear
A correction note should explain what was wrong and how the substance changed when the error could have affected a reader's decision. Routine spelling or formatting edits do not require a factual correction label. A correction date or revision history must reflect a documented change, not an assumed one.
Reviewing and Updating Guides
Guides warrant another look when information relevant to their advice changes. A recall, revised installation instruction, or changed safety recommendation can make previously accurate wording incomplete or misleading. No fixed review interval substitutes for checking the affected claim.
Safety Notices and Recalls
A relevant public warning or recall should prompt a review of safety passages within the notice's scope. A warning that identifies particular products, components, or use conditions must not be presented as a defect affecting every appliance in the category.
Revised Technical Information
Changes to manufacturer instructions, official program definitions, or technical guidance call for reconsidering claims that depend on them. These may include electrical and ventilation requirements, clearances, dimensions, capacity terminology, and maintenance instructions. Any new wording must retain the applicable design and operating conditions.
What a Review Date Means
A displayed "reviewed" or "updated" date must correspond to documented editorial work. A substantive review checks relevant claims against applicable information and confirms, qualifies, or revises them as needed. Fixing a typo or changing formatting does not establish that the guide's technical or safety content was rechecked.
Commercial Disclosure and Reader Feedback
A material relationship that could affect how readers interpret an endorsement or recommendation should be disclosed clearly near the relevant content. Reports of possible factual errors are assessed against appropriate evidence and the scope of the claim.
Material Relationships
If compensation, referral fees, sponsorship, or another benefit is connected to an endorsement, the relationship must be described accurately and conspicuously where it matters. A general policy page alone does not replace a disclosure beside affected content. Disclosure wording must reflect an actual arrangement, not imply a partnership that has not been established.
Evidence Standards Still Apply
A commercial relationship does not establish technical performance or justify an unsupported comparison. Claims about construction, safe operation, and suitability still require relevant evidence. Disclosure of an interest is not a substitute for an accurate claim.
Useful Reader Reports
A useful report identifies the page, the disputed passage, why it may be incorrect, and any supporting document or official notice. For technical claims, the appliance type, configuration, and operating conditions help determine whether the concern applies. A single owner's experience can prompt further checking without establishing a category-wide defect.