The journal examines care claims and the evidence needed to understand them. The current library publishes methods and worksheets, not numerical provider ratings or a claimed independent audit of treatment programs.
A check should have an explicit scope
We preserve the statement, its source and the question being examined. Status labels describe the work actually performed: documented, authority checked, or clarification pending. A source can be useful without answering every question, and a missing answer is not a negative finding by itself.
Primary authorities support factual guidance. Provider descriptions remain provider statements. Accreditation tools establish what their own records show; professional credentials need the relevant issuing authority. Outcomes questions require the definition of the figure before a comparison is attempted. These distinctions are part of the method, rather than small print added after a conclusion.
Authorship and production
AI assists research, drafting and page production. Factual guidance is checked against linked primary material. Claim cards, outcome-definition sheets and the revision ledger are original editorial tools. Worked situations are marked as illustrative. The pages do not invent reviewers, professional credentials, inspected providers, clients or treatment results.
We keep a source’s displayed date separate from the day it was accessed. A foundational measurement page may be useful while retaining its original review date; fetching it today does not turn it into a new study.
Corrections
Any later sponsorship, paid placement or referral compensation will be identified with the affected material.
Send a correction to the evidence desk with the page, precise wording and public primary source. A substantive change should leave the reader with a more accurate claim, source or scope. Review dates advance when the material is actually checked or changed.