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 is not an embarrassment — it is a potential harm. This policy describes exactly how we verify financial claims before publication, how we distinguish verifiable facts from analysis and opinion, how we handle information that changes rapidly, and what we do 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 in financial journalism is more demanding than in most other publishing categories. Financial facts are not static — interest rates, tax thresholds, regulatory limits, and product terms change continuously. A claim that was accurate at publication can become misleading within weeks. Our fact-checking process must therefore address not only whether a claim is currently accurate, but whether it will remain accurate long enough to be useful — and what we will do 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
Finance Authority Hub’s fact-checking obligation extends to all claims that 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 does not 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 requires authors to distinguish clearly between them so readers always know which type they are 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 ISA allowance for 2025–26 is £20,000.” / “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 author’s application of judgement, methodology, or framework. Analytical claims are not 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 tax rate for a higher-rate taxpayer using the basic personal allowance would be approximately 32%.”
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 the author’s or Finance Authority Hub’s 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 at Finance Authority Hub 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.
Author Identifies and Marks All Factual Claims in Draft
During drafting, the primary author is required to identify every specific factual claim in the content and mark it 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 flagged as a process failure — not accepted as sufficiently evidenced.
Primary Source Verification
Each factual claim is verified against its cited primary source by the author. 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 author checks: that the figure, rule, or statement is accurately reproduced; that the source is current and has not been superseded; and that the jurisdictional scope of the source matches the jurisdictional scope of the claim in the content.
Where a primary source cannot be found for a specific claim, the claim is either reframed as the author’s assessment (if it is genuinely analytical) or removed from the content.
Currency Check
Financial information has an expiry date. After verifying that a claim is accurate, the author confirms that it is current — that the regulatory rule has not changed since the source was published, that the rate is still in effect, that the product terms have not been revised. For information drawn from regulatory or government sources, the author checks the source’s own “last updated” date and any subsequent amendments.
Where a claim is accurate but drawn from a source more than six months old, the author either confirms it is still current or updates it 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 independently by the reviewing editor or specialist reviewer. The checking methodology: reproduce the calculation from scratch using the stated inputs and methodology; compare the result to the figure in the content; and verify that the inputs themselves are from a verified primary source.
A calculation error that has been reproduced from a third-party source does not meet our verification standard — we do not cite errors, even authoritative ones.
Specialist Technical Review
For content in complex or high-stakes domains — tax, investment regulation, pension rules, derivative instruments, cross-border finance — a specialist reviewer who is independent of the primary author conducts a second pass of all factual claims. The specialist reviewer verifies: technical accuracy of domain-specific claims; that regulatory references reflect the current state of the rules; and that the content does not contain any technically accurate but contextually misleading statements that might cause a reader to reach an incorrect conclusion.
Pre-Publication Final Check
Immediately before publication, the senior editor performs a final scan of the content focused 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 has been a significant gap between drafting and publication?
Content does not 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 require different verification approaches. The table below describes the specific verification methodology and primary source requirements for each major content domain covered by Finance Authority Hub.
| Content Domain | Typical Claims | Primary Sources Required | Review Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tax Rules & Allowances | Tax rates, personal allowances, contribution limits, relief thresholds, penalty rules | HMRC (UK) IRS (US) ATO (Australia) National revenue authority for relevant jurisdiction | Annual minimum; immediately on Budget announcements |
| Banking & Savings Rates | Interest rates, AER, APRC, fee amounts, eligibility criteria | Provider’s published rate schedule Regulator-approved Key Facts Document | Quarterly or on rate change notification |
| Monetary Policy & Central Bank Rates | Base rates, policy rates, quantitative easing, inflation targets | Bank of England Federal Reserve ECB Relevant national central bank | Per policy announcement; quarterly review minimum |
| Investment Regulation | FCA rules, SEC requirements, MiFID II, fund regulation, investor protection limits | FCA Handbook SEC regulations ESMA guidance Relevant national regulator | On regulatory update; annual minimum |
| Pension & Retirement Rules | Annual allowances, lifetime allowances, contribution limits, state pension amounts, drawdown rules | HMRC (UK) DWP (UK) IRS Publication 590 (US) Relevant national authority | Annual; immediately on Budget/policy announcements |
| Market & Economic Data | Index values, GDP figures, unemployment rates, inflation data, historical market returns | ONS / BLS / Eurostat IMF / World Bank Exchange official data | As cited — data must be identified by date of reference |
| Financial Product Features | Product fees, eligibility, terms, FSCS protection limits, switching conditions | Provider’s Key Facts Document Regulator-registered product documentation FSCS published limits | Quarterly; on product update notification |
| Insurance & Protection | Coverage limits, exclusions, premium ranges, FCA or state regulation requirements | Provider’s IPID / Policy Summary FCA register State insurance commission (US) | Annual minimum; on regulatory change |
Red Flags — Claims That Trigger Enhanced Scrutiny
Certain types of claims in financial content carry a higher risk of inaccuracy and a higher potential for harm if wrong. Finance Authority Hub’s fact-checkers apply enhanced scrutiny to any content that displays the following characteristics.
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. Enhanced review is mandatory.
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 are mandatory adjacent to any historical return figure.
Claims About Products We Earn Commission From
Any specific factual claim about a product from which Finance Authority Hub earns affiliate commission receives an independent factual verification pass — separate from the commercial consideration. This applies to: fee amounts, rate claims, eligibility criteria, product features, and regulatory protection status.
Rules That Change Frequently
Tax allowances, regulatory capital requirements, pension 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 Budget, policy announcement, or regulatory update since?
Claims That Align Too Conveniently with the Article’s Conclusion
Where a specific factual claim is cited in a way that strongly supports the article’s editorial conclusion, the reviewer applies additional scrutiny to that claim — checking not just that it is accurate, but that the source context is not 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 do not apply in another, and Finance Authority Hub serves a global readership.
Managing Time-Sensitive Financial Information
Many financial facts have an expiry date. A claim about an interest rate, a tax threshold, or a regulatory limit can be accurate today and wrong next month. Finance Authority Hub’s approach to time-sensitive information 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, central bank base rate decisions, current market index levels used as a reference point.
Our approach: These figures are cited with an explicit “as at [date]” notation and are not 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 or semi-annual cycle: tax year thresholds, pension allowances, ISA limits, minimum wage rates, regulated product contribution limits.
Our approach: These figures are cited with the tax year or period they apply to. Pages containing medium-decay information are flagged in our review schedule for update at the beginning of each new tax year or regulatory period. If a Budget or policy announcement changes a figure mid-cycle, the page is updated immediately.
Low-Decay Information
Foundational financial 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-ended versus closed-ended funds.
Our approach: These concepts are still dated at publication and reviewed on a biennial cycle. We also monitor for significant academic or regulatory developments that might require earlier review. “Evergreen” does not mean “never changes” — it means “changes slowly”.
Our Commitment on Outdated Information
We do not leave financial content live when we know it has become inaccurate. If a regulatory change, Budget announcement, or product update makes a claim on one of our pages materially inaccurate, that page is updated before the next visit cycle where possible — and no later than our next scheduled review of that content category. Where a page cannot be updated promptly, a visible notice is added to the page 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. Finance Authority Hub has 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 — we do not arbitrarily select one source as authoritative. Instead, we present the range of figures with their respective sources and methodologies, explain why they differ, and allow readers to assess which is most relevant to their context.
We never resolve source disagreements by selecting the figure that most supports the article’s editorial conclusion.
When the Evidence Is Genuinely Uncertain
Some financial claims rest on evidence that is evolving, contested in academic literature, or dependent on assumptions that remain open to question. In these cases, we state the uncertainty 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 does not is a form of misinformation, and we treat it as such.
When a Widely-Repeated Claim Cannot Be Verified
Financial content is full of statistics and claims that have been repeated so many times that they appear authoritative — but which cannot be traced to a verifiable primary source. The fact that a claim has appeared in major publications does not make it verifiable. Where we cannot trace a widely-repeated claim to a primary source, we do not repeat it. We either find the original source, or we acknowledge that the claim is commonly asserted but that we cannot verify its provenance.
When a Reader Disputes a Claim
When a reader submits a correction challenging a factual claim in our content, we treat the challenge seriously regardless of who submitted it. We re-verify the claim against its primary source, consider the evidence the reader has provided, and investigate whether the source remains current. Where the reader’s challenge identifies a genuine error, we correct it and acknowledge it publicly. Where our verification confirms the original claim, we respond to the submitter with our reasoning and the source evidence.
When Fact-Checking Fails — Our Correction Process
Our Position When an Error Reaches Publication
Finance Authority Hub’s fact-checking process is thorough, but no process prevents all errors. When a factual error reaches publication — whether identified by our team, a reader, or a third party — our response is defined, consistent, and public. We do not make silent edits. We do not reframe errors as clarifications when they were genuine mistakes. We do not minimise the significance of an error to protect the platform’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 — we immediately verify the claim against primary sources. We do not acknowledge an error until we have confirmed it. We do not defend a claim we cannot verify. The verification is conducted by a team member independent of the author who produced the original content where possible.
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 correction notice is placed prominently in the content — not in a footer, not on a separate corrections page that readers will never find.
Step 3: Process Review
Every confirmed error is reviewed internally as a process failure — not as the fault of an individual. We ask: 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 we adjust our process 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 — we proactively review all affected content, not just the page where the error was reported.
How Readers Can Challenge a Claim
Finance Authority Hub’s fact-checking is strengthened, not threatened, by reader challenges. Readers often have direct professional or regulatory knowledge that our authors and reviewers do not. We treat reader-submitted corrections as a valuable input to our quality process — not as 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 does not 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, we will respond with our determination and 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 any other submitter. A valid factual correction from an advertiser is still a valid factual correction.
Not all correction requests result in changes — where our re-verification confirms the original claim is accurate, we respond to the submitter with the primary source evidence and our reasoning. A correction request that does not identify a factual error does not result in an editorial change.
How to Submit a Correction
Send your correction request to corrections@financeauthorityhub.com or use our Complaints & Corrections page. For the fastest resolution, please include:
Frequently Asked Questions
How do I know whether a claim in your content is a verified fact or an editorial opinion?
Finance Authority Hub is required to distinguish 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 encounter a specific factual claim in our content that has no source citation, that is a quality failure — please report it through our 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. Finance Authority Hub’s maintenance policy requires that pages containing time-sensitive information are reviewed on a defined schedule — quarterly for high-decay information, annually for medium-decay information. If a primary source is updated and our page has not yet been reviewed, the page may temporarily contain a citation that points to a document which has since been revised. If you notice this, please report it — we will verify the current version of the source and update our content accordingly. You can also check the “Last Updated” date on any Finance Authority Hub page to assess currency.
Do you verify claims in sponsored or paid content to the same standard?
Yes. All sponsored content published on Finance Authority Hub — regardless of the commercial arrangement — is subject to the same factual accuracy standards as independent editorial content. We will not publish a specific factual claim in sponsored content that we cannot verify against a primary source. If a commercial partner wishes to include a claim in sponsored content that we cannot verify, we require either a credible primary source to be provided or the claim to be reframed as the partner’s own assertion rather than a verified fact. This is a non-negotiable condition of our sponsored content relationships.
Can you fact-check information in reader comments or user submissions?
Finance Authority Hub does not currently operate reader comments on published content. Where reader-submitted content appears on the platform in any form, it is reviewed before publication and is subject to the same factual accuracy standards as our editorial content. We do not publish user-generated claims that we cannot verify any more than we would publish unverified claims from our own authors.
What happens when two regulators give conflicting guidance on the same question?
Where regulatory bodies provide conflicting guidance — for example, where HMRC guidance and a tax tribunal ruling point in different directions, or where two national regulators take different positions on cross-border transactions — we present both positions with attribution and explain the nature of the conflict. We do not select the interpretation that is most convenient for the article’s conclusion. We identify which interpretation carries more legal weight or is more established in practice, and we recommend that readers seek professional advice for their specific circumstances. Regulatory conflicts are flagged in our content review process and updated promptly when the conflict is 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 all primary authors, specialist reviewers, editorial staff, and any external contributors who produce content for Finance Authority Hub.
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 our editorial practice evolves and as the landscape of financial regulation and data sources changes. Questions about our fact-checking standards should be directed to editorial@financeauthorityhub.com. Factual corrections should be submitted to corrections@financeauthorityhub.com. This policy was last reviewed on 22 May 2026.