Editorial policy

Purpose

Kabulov Stack exists to help businesses make better software decisions. Our articles are research documents: they describe what a product does according to its own documentation, add analysis that documentation does not provide, and state plainly who a product suits and who it does not.

Source policy

• Official sources first. Factual statements about a product (fees, limits, features, supported countries and currencies, timelines, policies) are taken from the vendor's official pricing pages, help center, product documentation, program pages or legal terms.
• No third-party blogs as evidence. Affiliate blogs, review aggregators and forum posts are never used as the authority for a fact.
• Conditions are preserved. If a fee is "up to", regional, currency-specific or depends on account type, we say so. We do not present a variable fee as universal.
• Vendor statements are labelled. Marketing claims such as coverage counts are attributed to the vendor, not presented as our finding.
• Dates are shown. Every article displays a publication date, an update date and the date its facts were last verified, and lists the sources used with the date each was accessed.

What we will never do

• Invent a fee, limit, availability rule, payout condition or legal or tax conclusion.
• Claim first-hand testing we have not done. If we did not test something ourselves, we say "according to the vendor's documentation" or "based on the published feature set".
• Publish a page only to capture a keyword variation when it would duplicate an existing article.
• Add structured data (schema) for content that is not visible on the page.
• Let an affiliate or consulting relationship change a conclusion.

Editorial workflow

1. Research from official sources

   Fees, features, limits and availability are collected from vendor pricing pages, help centers, product documentation and legal terms. Each claim is recorded with its source URL, the date it was accessed, the geography shown and any conditions.

2. Independent fact-check

   A second reviewer re-opens the source behind each claim and confirms that it supports the claim, that regional or conditional fees are not generalized, and that vendor marketing is labelled as such. Only claims that pass this review may be cited in an article. The review is a person reading a source, not software judging meaning.

3. Search-intent and structure review

   We decide whether a topic deserves its own article, what question it answers and what decision it supports, so that we do not publish near-duplicate pages.

4. Editorial brief and writing

   The writer follows an approved brief and may use only approved claims. Missing evidence is recorded as a gap, never filled from memory.

5. Statement-level binding

   Material factual statements are linked to reviewed primary-source evidence. Each is recorded against the claims that support it and is fingerprinted, so rewording it breaks the link and forces a fresh review. Automated checks confirm the link exists, that the cited evidence is about the same subject, that any arithmetic recalculates, and that each number in it comes from a claim stating that figure in that unit, so a rate cannot stand in for an amount. Software does not judge meaning: whether a statement is a fair reading of its source is decided by a person, and we publish the sources so you can decide too.

6. Worked examples kept separate

   Where we calculate what something would cost, the example sits in a block marked as illustrative, with its assumptions listed. Those figures are our arithmetic on stated premises, never vendor pricing, and an assumed number is structurally barred from supporting a factual statement about a product.

7. Affiliate compliance review

   Disclosures, link attributes and relationship statements are checked against our affiliate policy before publication.

8. Quality gate

   Automated checks validate structure, metadata, links, structured data, accessibility and responsive rendering before a human approves publication.

Original editorial value

We do not paraphrase vendor websites. Each article adds analysis that a vendor page will not give you: decision frameworks, use-case fit, cost scenarios, operational workflow implications, setup and compliance considerations, risks, and comparison logic. Where the evidence does not support a conclusion, we say so.

Freshness and updates

Pricing and feature pages change without notice. We re-verify time-sensitive facts on a schedule and whenever a reader reports a change. Articles whose facts have not been re-verified within a reasonable period are flagged for review. The "Facts verified" date on each article tells you when the last check happened.

Use of AI tools

We use AI-assisted tooling to collect sources, structure drafts and run quality checks. Every claim supporting a material factual statement is still tied to an official source and re-opened there by a second reviewer, and a human approves every publication. Whether a statement is a fair reading of its source is decided by a person, not by software. AI tools are never allowed to supply facts from memory.

Corrections

If you believe something is wrong or outdated, contact us with the page URL and, if possible, the official source. Verified corrections are applied and the update date is changed.