Inference exists to help readers understand AI developments clearly and accurately. These standards explain how we report, write, edit, and label our content, so you can evaluate what you're reading with full context.

Bylines and accountability

Every article on Inference carries a named author byline, linked to an author archive page with a real bio and stated beat. We don't publish unattributed or anonymously staffed content. If you have a question or concern about a specific article, the author byline and our Contact page are the way to reach us.

Sourcing standards

For reporting on real, factual developments, we cite primary sources (official announcements, published research, court filings, regulatory text) wherever possible, and we link to them directly rather than only describing them secondhand. When we characterize a company's or individual's position, we represent it accurately based on their own public statements, and we distinguish clearly between a company's own claims and our independent assessment of those claims.

How we label illustrative and sample content

Not every AI publication at every stage has the editorial capacity to produce exclusively original, fully verified reporting on every topic in scope. Where Inference publishes illustrative or sample content. Demonstrating a coverage format, or providing general, composite analysis rather than reporting a specific verified event, that content is clearly marked with a visible disclosure box at the top of the piece, stating plainly that it is illustrative and not a verified news report. We do not present invented specifics about real, named companies or individuals as fact. Where we discuss real companies or products, our claims are limited to what is genuinely well-established and verifiable; where we illustrate a format or pattern without a specific verified real-world instance, we say so explicitly and, where useful, use clearly fictional placeholder names rather than attaching invented specifics to a real company.

How AI tools are used in our own editorial process

We use AI tools in parts of our editorial workflow (including drafting assistance, research organization, and copyediting support) the same way a modern newsroom uses word processors and other software tools. AI-assisted drafts are reviewed and edited by a human editor before publication; AI tool use does not replace editorial judgment, fact-checking, or accountability for what we publish. Full detail on how and where we use AI is on our dedicated AI Disclosure page.

Corrections

We correct errors when we find them or when they're brought to our attention, and we do so transparently rather than silently editing published content. See our full Corrections Policy for how that process works.

Editorial independence from advertising and sponsorship

Advertising, affiliate partnerships, and sponsored content never influence our editorial coverage decisions or opinions. Sponsored posts are clearly labeled as such, both in a banner at the top of the piece and in a disclosure statement, and they're produced separately from our editorial content. Our reporters and editors are not involved in producing sponsored content. Affiliate links, where used (primarily in AI Tools reviews), are disclosed via an automatic disclosure block, and affiliate relationships do not influence which tools we choose to review or what we say about them.

Reviewing and updating our content

Evergreen guide content (our pillar pages) is reviewed on a recurring basis to keep it current as the underlying technology and landscape change. Each pillar page shows a "last reviewed" date. Dated news and analysis content reflects our understanding and the state of the world at the time of publication and is not continuously updated, except via a formal correction where warranted.

Questions or concerns

If you have a question about how a specific piece was reported, written, or labeled, reach out via our Contact page. We take these questions seriously and will respond.