Sources Policy

Updated September 30, 2026 · DigitalProUsa

Which sources we prioritize

• Official documentation and purchase terms: product documentation, help pages, licensing, published pricing, checkout terms and refund policies are primary references for what a seller offers.
• Relevant platform documentation: official policies from the platforms a tool depends on are used for model access, APIs, publishing, advertising, marketplace rules and permitted use.
• Direct observations: when product access is available, screenshots, exports and reproducible workflow notes can support a hands-on claim. The review should state the access and test scope.
• Independent reporting and user evidence: useful for context or corroboration, with attention to the date, sample size, conflicts and whether the account can be independently checked.

Sales pages are sources of claims, not proof of results

A sales page can establish that a seller advertises a feature, price or guarantee. It cannot by itself prove output quality, reliability, earnings or support performance. Affiliate promotions, launch listings and seller demonstrations may describe an offer, but they are not independent verification.

Claims such as “lifetime,” “unlimited,” “official model access,” “commercial rights” or “automated income” need careful qualification. We look for plan restrictions, usage conditions, dependencies and purchase terms, and identify unresolved details instead of treating the headline as a complete specification.

Attribution and links

Material factual claims should have a relevant source link close to the statement or in a clearly labeled source section. A useful attribution names the source and distinguishes the seller's statement from our assessment. We favor the original document over copied summaries where available.

For time-sensitive facts, a review should state the date checked. Pricing, refund conditions, product availability and integrations can change after publication. Readers should verify the current seller or platform terms before a purchase or business decision.

Conflicting information and unavailable evidence

When a sales page, checkout and documentation disagree, we explain the conflict and avoid silently selecting the most favorable claim. Current purchase terms matter to the actual transaction, but an unresolved contradiction should remain visible to the reader.

We do not present a private dashboard, customer interview, purchase receipt or support interaction as evidence unless it was actually available. If hands-on access was unavailable, the article should say so. A limitation is more useful than an invented test result.

AI assistance and editorial responsibility

AI tools can assist with organizing notes, drafting or editing. AI-generated text is not a primary source and must not be used to invent quotations, citations, features, testing experiences or credentials. Product claims and links need checking against accessible evidence. Editorial responsibility remains with the publisher, including when a tool assisted the writing.

Corrections and meaningful updates

To request a correction, use Contact & corrections and include the exact page URL, statement and a supporting original source. We assess the evidence, correct material errors where supported, and describe significant changes when they affect the review's interpretation. A vendor may submit factual information without receiving control over the verdict.

Relationships and reader context

Affiliate relationships should be disclosed clearly; a source link and an affiliate purchase link serve different purposes. See the Earnings & Affiliate Disclosure. Our Review Methodology explains how evidence feeds into evaluation, and Biraj Digital's profile identifies the publisher.

Further reading

For broader guidance, read Google's guidance on helpful, reliable content and the FTC's endorsement and disclosure guidance. These links explain general principles; they are not an endorsement or certification of this website.

Browse the latest DigitalProUsa reviews and check the evidence and limitations in the individual article.