How we publish — and what we'll stand behind.
This policy covers everything StartupAmplify publishes: the Learn articles, the distribution benchmark, the directory-quality methodology, case studies, and the directory descriptions in the catalog. The goal is simple — be the most rigorous, honest, citable source in this niche, not the loudest.
AI-assisted, human-edited
Articles and directory copy are drafted with AI and reviewed by a human before publishing. We do not publish unreviewed model output as fact, and we don't pass AI drafts off as independent human reporting.
Evidence over adjectives
Claims are verifiable or they don't ship. We distinguish catalog vs. active vs. verified vs. live-indexed directories, and attempts vs. submitted vs. approved. Numbers carry a date because they change.
Limitations are mandatory
Where a claim has caveats — small sample, correlation not causation, early data — we say so in the piece itself, not in a footnote nobody reads.
Independent by default
The directory-quality score and the distribution benchmark are computed from first-party data, not paid placement. No directory can buy a higher grade. If we ever run sponsored or affiliate content, it will be labelled as such, inline.
No manufactured proof
No fake reviews, testimonials, community threads, or case studies. Case studies use real, dated numbers with explicit limitations — including the ones that aren't flattering yet.
Dating & updates
Published pages carry a last-updated date. When we materially change a claim or a number, we update the date and — if the change corrects an error — log it under our corrections policy. We don't silently rewrite history.
Found a problem?
If something we published is wrong, tell us — mat@startupamplify.com. We'd rather fix it and note the correction than leave a confident error standing.