How Arxo Writings Are Checked

A source, a calculation and an interpretation support different kinds of claims. Our articles should make that distinction visible.

Sources and context

Explainers, historical stories, research and commentary cite the sources behind their factual claims. An article does not need an executable model to examine a question. Where a conclusion is an interpretation or an open question, it should be presented as such.

For current events and legal developments, the relevant jurisdiction, edition and dates matter. A proposal is not an adopted rule; adoption is not necessarily the date it takes effect. Publication and substantive updates are dated separately.

Executable examples

When an article reports a calculation from Arxo, its evidence should identify the model, input facts and result. A proposed example or a test expectation is not a completed run. A saved result supports the case and version it records, rather than every possible situation.

Where a public example is available, the article links to it or to a checked answer in Arxo Lens. Assumptions, missing facts and judgments that belong to a person remain part of the explanation.

Editorial review

AI-assisted preparation can include topic selection, research, drafting and a separate review of the text and its evidence. These checks do not authorize publication. Publication requires an editorial decision, and the credited author should reflect the work on that article.

If a source or rule changes, the article needs a fresh review of the affected claims. A material correction should explain what changed and carry an updated date.