Fact-Checking Policy
Every Claim Checked.
Every Source Named.
Every Error Corrected.
Finance Authority Hub publishes content that readers use to make real financial decisions. That means a factual error isn’t an embarrassment — it’s a potential harm. This policy describes exactly how financial claims are verified before publication, how verifiable facts are distinguished from analysis and opinion, how information that changes rapidly is handled, and what happens when a verification fails and an error reaches publication.
Fact-Checking Standards at a Glance
What Fact-Checking Means for Financial Content
Why Financial Fact-Checking Is Different
Fact-checking financial content is more demanding than in most other publishing categories. Financial facts aren’t static — interest rates, tax thresholds, contribution limits, and product terms change continuously. A claim that was accurate at publication can become misleading within weeks. The fact-checking process here therefore has to address not only whether a claim is currently accurate, but whether it will stay accurate long enough to be useful — and what happens when it stops being accurate.
The Core Obligation
Every specific factual claim in Finance Authority Hub content must be verifiable against a named primary source at the time of publication. “Verifiable” means a reader could independently access the same source and confirm the claim. “Named” means the source is cited within or alongside the content — not buried in a general disclaimer, not assumed to be common knowledge, and not left for readers to find themselves.
The Scope of Fact-Checking
The fact-checking obligation extends to all claims a reasonable reader could rely upon in making a financial decision. This includes: specific rates and figures (interest rates, tax thresholds, fee amounts, return percentages); regulatory rules and requirements; product features and terms; historical market data used as a reference point; and attributions — claims about what a regulatory body, company, or institution has said or done.
It doesn’t include analytical conclusions, editorial judgements, or clearly labelled opinions — though these must also be clearly distinguished from factual claims.
Three Types of Claims — Different Standards for Each
Not all statements in financial content are factual claims requiring the same level of verification. Finance Authority Hub applies different standards to different types of claims — and distinguishes clearly between them so readers always know which type they’re reading.
Factual Claims
A factual claim is a statement about the world that is either true or false and can be verified against an authoritative external source. In financial content, factual claims include specific rates, thresholds, limits, product features, regulatory requirements, and historical data.
Examples: “The 401(k) employee contribution limit for 2025 is $23,500.” / “The Federal Reserve raised rates by 25 basis points on [date].” / “Product X charges an annual management fee of 0.35%.”
Verification Standard
Must be verified against a named primary source (regulatory body, central bank, official statistics, or product documentation) before publication. Source must be cited. Currency of the source must be confirmed. Data must be current at the date of publication.
Analytical Claims
An analytical claim draws a conclusion from factual data. The data itself may be verifiable, but the conclusion reflects the application of judgement, methodology, or a framework. Analytical claims aren’t true or false in the same absolute sense as factual claims — they can be well or poorly reasoned.
Examples: “Based on the current yield curve, the market is pricing in two further rate cuts in 2026.” / “Under this scenario, the effective federal tax rate for a single filer taking the standard deduction would be roughly 18%.”
Verification Standard
The underlying data must meet factual-claim standards. The analytical methodology must be explicitly described so readers can assess it. The conclusion must be framed as analysis, not fact. Sensitivity to key assumptions should be disclosed where material.
Editorial Opinions
An editorial opinion is a value judgement or assessment that reflects a view, rather than a verifiable fact or analytical derivation. Opinions are a legitimate and important part of financial commentary — but only when clearly labelled as such.
Examples: “We consider Product X to offer better value for most readers than Product Y.” / “In our assessment, this regulatory change increases risk for retail investors rather than reducing it.” / “This strategy is unsuitable for investors with a short time horizon.”
Verification Standard
Must be clearly framed as an opinion or assessment, not as objective fact. Must be grounded in the factual and analytical claims that precede it. Cannot use language that implies certainty about outcomes that are inherently uncertain. Must not be used to obscure a factual claim that should be verified.
Our Fact-Checking Process — Step by Step
Every piece of financial content passes through a defined fact-checking process as part of the publication pipeline. The stages below describe what happens to a factual claim from first draft to published page.
Every Factual Claim Is Identified and Marked in the Draft
During drafting, every specific factual claim in the content is identified and marked with its source at the point of writing — not as an afterthought during review. Claims are categorised as: verifiable fact (requiring primary source citation), analytical derivation (requiring methodology disclosure), or editorial opinion (requiring explicit framing).
Unmarked factual claims that survive to the review stage are treated as a process failure — not accepted as sufficiently evidenced.
Primary Source Verification
Each factual claim is verified against its cited primary source. Verification requires direct access to the source — not confirmation that the source exists, but confirmation that the specific claim is accurately represented in the content. The check covers: that the figure, rule, or statement is accurately reproduced; that the source is current and hasn’t been superseded; and that the jurisdictional scope of the source matches the jurisdictional scope of the claim.
Where a primary source can’t be found for a specific claim, the claim is either reframed as an assessment (if it’s genuinely analytical) or removed from the content.
Currency Check
Financial information has an expiry date. After a claim is verified as accurate, it’s confirmed current — that the rule hasn’t changed since the source was published, that the rate is still in effect, that the product terms haven’t been revised. For information drawn from regulatory or government sources, the source’s own “last updated” date and any subsequent amendments are checked.
Where a claim is accurate but drawn from a source more than six months old, it’s either confirmed still current or updated with a more recent source before publication.
Calculation Verification
Where content includes numerical calculations — compound interest projections, tax-liability calculations, mortgage repayment schedules, or any other derived figure — the calculation is checked by reproducing it from scratch using the stated inputs and methodology, comparing the result to the figure in the content, and verifying that the inputs themselves come from a verified primary source.
A calculation error reproduced from a third-party source doesn’t meet the verification standard — errors aren’t cited, even authoritative ones.
Enhanced Verification for High-Stakes Content
For content in complex or high-stakes domains — tax, investment regulation, retirement rules, derivative instruments, cross-border finance — every factual claim gets a second, dedicated verification pass focused on: technical accuracy of domain-specific claims; whether regulatory references reflect the current state of the rules; and whether the content contains any technically accurate but contextually misleading statements that might lead a reader to an incorrect conclusion. Content of this kind is also flagged for review by a credentialed professional where one is available, and any reviewer who checks a piece is named on it.
Pre-Publication Final Check
Immediately before publication, a final scan focuses on three questions: Are all factual claims attributed to a named, accessible primary source? Are analytical claims and editorial opinions clearly distinguished from factual claims? Has any time-sensitive information changed since the draft was completed — particularly if there’s been a significant gap between drafting and publication?
Content doesn’t proceed to publication if any factual claim is unverified or unsourced at this stage.
How We Verify Claims by Financial Domain
Different types of financial claims need different verification approaches. The table below describes the verification approach and primary-source requirements for each major content domain. Coverage is US-focused, with international sources used where a topic is relevant to readers in other countries.
| Content Domain | Typical Claims | Primary Sources Required | Review Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tax Rules & Allowances | Tax rates, contribution limits, deduction thresholds, relief and penalty rules | IRS (US) State revenue departments HMRC / national revenue authority (intl.) | Annual minimum; immediately on tax-law changes |
| Banking & Savings Rates | Interest rates, APY, APR, fee amounts, eligibility criteria | Provider’s published rate schedule Truth in Savings disclosure | Quarterly or on rate-change notification |
| Monetary Policy & Central Bank Rates | The federal funds rate, policy rates, balance-sheet policy, inflation targets | Federal Reserve ECB Bank of England (intl.) | Per policy announcement; quarterly review minimum |
| Investment Regulation | SEC rules, FINRA requirements, fund regulation, investor-protection limits | SEC FINRA FCA / ESMA (intl.) | On regulatory update; annual minimum |
| Retirement & Pension Rules | Contribution limits, catch-up rules, RMD rules, Social Security amounts, withdrawal rules | IRS (incl. Pub. 590) Social Security Administration National authority (intl.) | Annual; immediately on policy/legislative changes |
| Market & Economic Data | Index values, GDP figures, unemployment rates, CPI/inflation data, historical market returns | BLS / BEA / Census Bureau IMF / World Bank Exchange official data | As cited — data must be identified by date of reference |
| Financial Product Features | Product fees, eligibility, terms, FDIC protection limits, switching conditions | Provider’s disclosure documents FDIC published limits | Quarterly; on product-update notification |
| Insurance & Protection | Coverage limits, exclusions, premium ranges, state regulation requirements | Provider’s policy summary / declarations State insurance commission NAIC | Annual minimum; on regulatory change |
Red Flags — Claims That Trigger Enhanced Scrutiny
Certain types of claims carry a higher risk of inaccuracy and a higher potential for harm if wrong. The following characteristics trigger enhanced scrutiny on any content that displays them.
Absolute Language in Probabilistic Contexts
Claims using “always”, “never”, “guaranteed”, “certain”, or “risk-free” in relation to financial outcomes trigger mandatory scrutiny. Financial outcomes are inherently probabilistic. Absolute language in this context either contains a factual error or obscures material risk.
Specific Returns or Performance Figures
Any specific historical return, performance figure, or yield claim requires verification against the original data source, with the time period and date range explicitly stated. Annualised figures must be clearly identified as annualised. Past-performance disclosures appear adjacent to any historical return figure.
Claims About Products We Earn Commission From
Any specific factual claim about a product Finance Authority Hub earns affiliate commission from gets a separate factual verification pass, judged on its own merits regardless of the commercial relationship. This covers fee amounts, rate claims, eligibility criteria, product features, and regulatory-protection status.
Rules That Change Frequently
Tax allowances, regulatory requirements, retirement contribution rules, and consumer-protection limits change regularly — often annually. Claims in these areas trigger an automatic currency check: when was the source last updated, and has there been a tax-law change, policy announcement, or regulatory update since?
Claims That Align Too Conveniently with the Conclusion
Where a specific factual claim is cited in a way that strongly supports the article’s conclusion, that claim gets additional scrutiny — checking not just that it’s accurate, but that the source context isn’t being selectively applied in a way that misleads. Cherry-picked accurate statistics can mislead as effectively as inaccurate ones.
Cross-Jurisdictional Generalisation
Claims that present jurisdiction-specific rules as universal — “the interest is tax-free” without specifying country, or “you can claim this as a business expense” without stating which tax system — are flagged for rewriting with explicit jurisdictional scope. Rules that apply in one country frequently don’t apply in another.
Managing Time-Sensitive Financial Information
Many financial facts have an expiry date. A claim about an interest rate, a tax threshold, or a contribution limit can be accurate today and wrong next month. The approach here is built around three principles: date everything, flag what will change, and update before it misleads.
High-Decay Information
Information that can become inaccurate within days or weeks: live product interest rates, Federal Reserve rate decisions, current market index levels used as a reference point.
The approach: These figures are cited with an explicit “as at [date]” notation and aren’t used as bare factual claims. Readers are directed to the primary source for current figures. Where a rate changes after publication, the page is updated with the new rate and the change date before the next scheduled review.
Medium-Decay Information
Information that changes on a predictable annual cycle: tax-year thresholds, retirement contribution limits (401(k)/IRA), the standard deduction, Social Security cost-of-living adjustments, FDIC and similar limits.
The approach: These figures are cited with the tax year or period they apply to. Pages containing medium-decay information are flagged in the review schedule for update at the start of each new tax year. If a law or policy change alters a figure mid-cycle, the page is updated immediately.
Low-Decay Information
Foundational concepts and principles that change rarely: how compound interest works, the principles of portfolio diversification, how bond duration affects price sensitivity, the mechanics of open-end versus closed-end funds.
The approach: These concepts are still dated at publication and reviewed on a biennial cycle, with monitoring for significant academic or regulatory developments that might require earlier review. “Evergreen” doesn’t mean “never changes” — it means “changes slowly”.
Our Commitment on Outdated Information
Financial content isn’t left live when it’s known to have become inaccurate. If a law change, policy announcement, or product update makes a claim on a page materially inaccurate, that page is updated before the next visit cycle where possible — and no later than the next scheduled review of that content category. Where a page can’t be updated promptly, a visible notice is added stating that the information is under review and linking to the relevant primary source for current figures.
How We Handle Disputed and Genuinely Uncertain Facts
Not all financial claims are straightforwardly verifiable. Some involve genuine empirical uncertainty. Some are disputed between credible sources. Some are accurate in aggregate but misleading in specific contexts. There’s a defined approach for each type.
When Credible Sources Disagree
Where two or more credible primary sources present conflicting data — for example, different inflation measures yielding different rates, or different methodologies for calculating historical returns — one source isn’t arbitrarily selected as authoritative. Instead, the range of figures is presented with their respective sources and methodologies, with an explanation of why they differ, so readers can assess which is most relevant to their context.
Source disagreements are never resolved by selecting the figure that most supports the article’s conclusion.
When the Evidence Is Genuinely Uncertain
Some financial claims rest on evidence that is evolving, contested in the academic literature, or dependent on assumptions that remain open to question. In these cases the uncertainty is stated explicitly: “The evidence on this question is mixed — studies A and B suggest X, while C and D find Y, with the difference attributable to…” Pretending certainty exists when it doesn’t is a form of misinformation, and it’s treated as such.
When a Widely-Repeated Claim Cannot Be Verified
Financial content is full of statistics that have been repeated so many times they appear authoritative — but which can’t be traced to a verifiable primary source. The fact that a claim has appeared in major publications doesn’t make it verifiable. Where a widely-repeated claim can’t be traced to a primary source, it isn’t repeated here. Either the original source is found, or it’s acknowledged that the claim is commonly asserted but its provenance can’t be verified.
When a Reader Disputes a Claim
When a reader submits a correction challenging a factual claim, the challenge is taken seriously regardless of who submitted it. The claim is re-verified against its primary source, the evidence the reader provided is considered, and whether the source remains current is checked. Where the challenge identifies a genuine error, it’s corrected and acknowledged publicly. Where verification confirms the original claim, the submitter gets a response with the reasoning and the source evidence.
When Fact-Checking Fails — Our Correction Process
Our Position When an Error Reaches Publication
The fact-checking process here is thorough, but no process prevents all errors. When a factual error reaches publication — whether identified internally, by a reader, or by a third party — the response is defined, consistent, and public. No silent edits. No reframing genuine mistakes as “clarifications.” No minimising the significance of an error to protect the site’s reputation at the expense of readers who may have acted on it.
Step 1: Immediate Verification
When a potential error is identified — by any route — the claim is immediately re-checked against primary sources. An error isn’t acknowledged until it’s confirmed, and a claim that can’t be verified isn’t defended. Where the original draft was AI-assisted, the re-check is done personally against the source.
Step 2: Correction and Prominent Acknowledgement
Where an error is confirmed, the content is corrected and a visible correction notice is added to the page. The notice states what the original claim was, what the correct information is, when the correction was made, and — where helpful — why the error occurred. The notice is placed prominently in the content, not in a footer or on a separate corrections page readers will never find.
Step 3: Process Review
Every confirmed error is reviewed as a process failure. The question is: at which stage of the fact-checking process was this error not caught, and why? Was it a source-currency failure, a calculation error, a scope misapplication, or a verification step that was skipped? The answer informs how the process is adjusted to prevent the same class of error from recurring.
Step 4: Systemic Check
Where an error reflects a systemic issue — a changed regulation affecting multiple pages, a miscalculation methodology applied across a family of tools, or a misframing of a concept used in several articles — all affected content is reviewed, not just the page where the error was reported.
How Readers Can Challenge a Claim
The fact-checking here is strengthened, not threatened, by reader challenges. Readers often have direct professional or regulatory knowledge that the site doesn’t. Reader-submitted corrections are treated as a valuable input to the quality process — not a reputational risk to be managed.
Anyone can submit a correction request — reader, industry professional, regulatory body, competitor, or anonymous member of the public. The identity of the submitter doesn’t affect how the correction is investigated.
Corrections are most actionable when specific — include the page URL, the exact claim you believe is wrong, and a primary source supporting the correct information. Vague concerns are harder to investigate and slower to resolve.
All valid corrections receive a response — if you include a contact email, you’ll get a determination and the reasoning within 1–5 business days depending on complexity.
Corrections from commercial parties are investigated on merit — an advertiser, affiliate partner, or product provider who submits a correction gets the same investigation process as anyone else. A valid factual correction from an advertiser is still a valid factual correction.
Not all correction requests result in changes — where re-verification confirms the original claim is accurate, the submitter gets the primary-source evidence and the reasoning. A correction request that doesn’t identify a factual error doesn’t result in an editorial change.
How to Submit a Correction
Send your correction request to corrections@financeauthorityhub.com or use the Complaints & Corrections page. For the fastest resolution, please include:
Frequently Asked Questions
How do I know whether a claim is a verified fact or an editorial opinion?
Finance Authority Hub distinguishes clearly between factual claims, analytical claims, and editorial opinions in all published content. Factual claims are accompanied by a primary-source citation. Analytical claims are framed with language describing the methodology (“based on”, “this calculation assumes”, “using [index] data through [date]”). Editorial opinions and assessments are framed with first-person or attributive language (“in our assessment”, “we consider”, “Finance Authority Hub rates this as”). If you find a specific factual claim with no source citation, that’s a quality failure — please report it through the corrections channel.
What if the primary source you cited has since been updated and is now different?
This is one of the most common sources of error in financial content. The maintenance policy requires pages containing time-sensitive information to be reviewed on a defined schedule — quarterly for high-decay information, annually for medium-decay information. If a primary source is updated and a page hasn’t yet been reviewed, the page may temporarily cite a document that has since been revised. If you notice this, please report it — the current version of the source will be verified and the content updated. You can also check the “Last Updated” date on any page to assess currency.
Do you verify claims in sponsored or paid content to the same standard?
Yes. All sponsored content — regardless of the commercial arrangement — is subject to the same factual-accuracy standards as independent editorial content. A specific factual claim that can’t be verified against a primary source won’t be published in sponsored content. If a commercial partner wants to include a claim that can’t be verified, either a credible primary source has to be provided or the claim is reframed as the partner’s own assertion rather than a verified fact. This is a non-negotiable condition of any sponsored-content relationship.
Can you fact-check information in reader comments or user submissions?
Finance Authority Hub doesn’t currently operate reader comments on published content. Where reader-submitted content appears on the site in any form, it’s reviewed before publication and subject to the same factual-accuracy standards as editorial content. User-generated claims that can’t be verified aren’t published any more than unverified claims from the site itself would be.
What happens when two regulators give conflicting guidance on the same question?
Where regulatory bodies provide conflicting guidance — for example, where IRS guidance and a court ruling point in different directions, or two regulators take different positions on cross-border transactions — both positions are presented with attribution and an explanation of the nature of the conflict. The interpretation that’s most convenient for the article’s conclusion isn’t simply selected; instead, the content identifies which interpretation carries more legal weight or is more established in practice, and recommends that readers seek professional advice for their specific circumstances. Regulatory conflicts are flagged in the content review process and updated promptly when resolved by updated guidance or case law.
Related Policies & Guidelines
Formal Fact-Checking Policy Statement
This Fact-Checking Policy governs all content published on financeauthorityhub.com. It applies to the founder, and to any credentialed reviewer who contributes to the site.
Finance Authority Hub’s fact-checking standards are designed to meet the requirements of Google’s Search Quality Evaluator Guidelines for Your Money or Your Life (YMYL) content, and to support the Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trust (E-E-A-T) signals that Google considers essential for high-quality financial content. Accurate, verifiable content is the foundation of reader trust in a YMYL publishing context.
This policy is reviewed and updated as editorial practice evolves and as the landscape of financial regulation and data sources changes. Questions about these standards can be directed to editorial@financeauthorityhub.com. Factual corrections should be submitted to corrections@financeauthorityhub.com. This policy was last reviewed in June 2026.