Proposed Editorial Standards

Status of this policy

This page describes how Hardwindex is intended to operate. It does not claim that an editorial organisation currently follows the method. No responsible operator, accountable editors, technical fact-checkers, legal reviewer, testing facility, funding source, affiliate arrangement, or commercial relationship has been supplied. Publication is blocked until real people adopt, test, and document the method.

Scope and article selection

The proposed scope is narrow: computer hardware decision manuals based on calculations and observable specification categories. Articles should answer a distinct planning question. A new page must add a reusable worksheet, scenario, decision tree, checklist, or dataset rather than restating an existing manual. The publication should not create pages for tiny keyword variations or city substitutions.

Hardwindex does not recommend or rank products. Visitor-facing pages avoid real product, company, and vendor names. No affiliate links, review scores, testimonials, awards, certifications, laboratory claims, or fabricated benchmarks are permitted. A future change to that boundary would require a new commercial policy, legal review, visible disclosure, and a documented evidence process.

Proposed source hierarchy

Before publication, every technical claim should be checked against current sources. Revision-specific component manuals and support lists should govern compatibility, connector, electrical, firmware, and dimensional claims. General technical references may explain principles but must not overrule a current manual. Measurements need a named procedure, equipment record, environmental conditions, sample identity, and date; otherwise they must be labelled as estimates or removed.

Source dates matter. Hardware support changes through revisions and firmware. Each factual pass should record the claim, source type, exact revision where relevant, date checked, and the editor responsible. If sources disagree, the article should describe the disagreement or narrow the claim. Silence is not resolution.

Calculation rule

Every worked calculation should expose its inputs, units, arithmetic, assumptions, and result. Invented scenarios must be labelled illustrative. Estimates should use ranges or uncertainty margins where the input cannot support precision. Unit conventions must stay consistent within one equation. Rounding happens at the end unless an intermediate rounded value is explicitly shown.

A second person should reproduce the arithmetic without access to private notes. The proposed check is simple: copy the printed inputs into a blank calculation, compare each intermediate result, then test a plausible high and low case. The power worksheet separates sustained and transient lines; the storage estimator separates retained growth from host writes. Those distinctions should survive editing.

Specification sheets and actual parts

Specification sheets are educational inputs, not proof that a complete system will behave in one way. Actual parts can vary by revision, firmware, silicon, module composition, enclosure, ambient conditions, workload, and assembly. Generic guidance cannot confirm a parts list. Every compatibility article must direct readers back to exact current manuals and qualified help where electrical or fire safety is involved.

No article should imply that a matching socket, nominal capacity, or physical maximum settles the whole build. The compatibility gate exists because support, geometry, electrical paths, thermals, and boot requirements interact.

Authorship and accountability

The current names on the authors page are illustrative roles. They make the preview structure legible but cannot remain as unqualified claims of authorship. Before publication, real editors must be identified, consent to bylines, disclose relevant conflicts, and accept responsibility for each dated article. Credentials may be stated only when verified and relevant. Experience claims require truthful evidence; invented lab or field history is prohibited.

Corrections

The proposed corrections path begins with a monitored mailbox and a public correction note. A report should identify the page, disputed statement, reason, and supporting source. An accountable editor should acknowledge it, assess impact, amend the article when needed, change the visible modified date, and append a concise note describing the material correction. Quietly changing a consequential number is not acceptable.

The current mailbox is unverified and unmonitored, so no correction service exists yet. The contact form preview sends nothing. Until those systems and owners are established, corrections cannot be received or processed reliably.

Commercial boundaries

Hardwindex does not claim independence from vendors because no real funding or commercial model has been supplied. The required statement remains: “Commercial relationship and funding details are not yet established; this pre-launch publication accepts no inquiries or placements.” No paid placement, sponsorship, sample, referral fee, affiliate mechanism, or advertising relationship is represented.

Before launch, the operator must publish an accurate funding policy. It should identify ownership, revenue sources, treatment of supplied hardware, editorial separation, conflict handling, affiliate mechanics if any, and the labelling of paid material. The policy must describe reality rather than a desirable future posture.

Images, privacy, and accessibility

Unverified public images are decorative, carry empty alternative text, and make no factual claim. Each must be visually and legally reviewed, then preferably self-hosted before publication. Tables require scoped headers and contained overflow. Links, controls, forms, headings, contrast, reduced motion, and keyboard focus should be checked on desktop and mobile.

Publication status and unresolved business details are listed on About Hardwindex. Privacy handling is set out in the draft privacy notice, which is also pending operator and legal verification.