EDITORIAL STANDARDS
Useful ideas.
Visible evidence.
The commitments that guide what we publish, what we recommend, and how we correct the record.
Trace claims to their sources.
Prefer primary sources: original research, official documentation, direct interviews, or clearly described hands-on work. Cite the source close to the claim and collect references at the end of the article.
Separate a reported fact from an interpretation, a vendor statement, and our recommendation. Explain limitations and uncertainty. Do not invent studies, customer outcomes, quotations, or author credentials.
Can someone follow the evidence, understand its limits, and reach their own conclusion?
Explain the conditions of a review.
A tool review should state what was evaluated, when it was tested, which version or plan was used, and how the evaluation was conducted. Report what was observed rather than turning a vendor promise into a finding.
Use job-relevant criteria, source traceability, data handling, control over actions, integration behavior, and operational fit. Database size alone is not evidence of usefulness. Make clear when an article offers an evaluation framework rather than a hands-on review.
An editor remains accountable.
AI may assist with research organization, outlining, or drafting. It does not replace source verification, responsible attribution, or editorial approval. Disclose material AI assistance where readers need it to understand how the work was produced.
Material use of AI in preparing a story should be disclosed in the article. The accountable editor is responsible for checking every factual claim.
Make commercial relationships visible.
Wrangle.ai owns The Agentic Recruiter. Disclose that relationship in the footer, on the About page, and in contextual recommendations where it matters. Sponsored or affiliate content, if introduced later, must be labeled clearly.
Recommendations of Wrangle must meet the same evidence standard as recommendations of other tools. A link to the owner’s website is not an evaluation of its capabilities.
Correct the record, visibly.
When a reader flags an error, the editor should review the specific passage and supporting source. Substantive corrections should update the article, its modified date, and a dated correction note explaining what changed. A routine clarification should not quietly erase an error.
Our public corrections channel will be announced with the first published edition. A correction request should identify the article, the passage in question, and a supporting source or explanation.
Every story goes through source review, author or editor accountability, and editorial approval before its full text is published. Announcing a forthcoming story does not bypass that process.