Our commitment to accuracy, evidence and responsible publishing.

Effective date: 5 October 2026

Overview

Aurea Regula believes that accuracy and accountability are fundamental to responsible publishing.

Our aim is to provide readers with information that is carefully researched, supported by credible evidence and presented fairly.

We recognise that different subjects require different standards of verification. A historical article, a watch specification, a product review and a piece of cultural commentary may require different sources and different levels of checking.

Our editorial team therefore applies a proportionate fact-checking process appropriate to the subject, significance and complexity of each article.

Source Selection and Verification

Aurea Regula seeks to use reliable and relevant sources when researching editorial content.

Where appropriate, these may include:

• official records and documents;
• manufacturers and brand documentation;
• government and institutional sources;
• academic publications;
• recognised specialist publications;
• books and archival material;
• interviews with qualified experts;
• original documents and primary sources;
• reputable secondary sources.

Where practical, we prefer primary sources when establishing factual information.

Sources are assessed for their relevance, reliability, authority and proximity to the subject being reported.

We do not treat a source as reliable simply because it is widely repeated online.

Cross-Checking and Fact-Checking

Important factual claims may be checked against more than one source where appropriate.

This may include comparing:

• dates;
• specifications;
• measurements;
• historical records;
• quotations;
• product information;
• company information;
• financial or statistical data;
• technical claims.

Where information is disputed, unclear or difficult to independently verify, we may seek additional evidence or consult relevant experts or authoritative sources.

The level of verification will depend on the nature of the claim and the potential consequences of publishing inaccurate information.

Editorial Review

Editorial content may be reviewed before publication to assess:

• factual accuracy;
• source quality;
• clarity;
• grammar and presentation;
• consistency with our editorial standards;
• appropriate distinction between fact, opinion and interpretation.

Editorial review does not mean that every article is guaranteed to be free from error.

It means that we take reasonable steps to ensure that material claims are properly researched and that published information meets the standards we expect of Aurea Regula.

Accurate and Responsible Headlines

Headlines should accurately reflect the substance of an article.

Aurea Regula does not intentionally use misleading headlines to create an impression that the article itself does not support.

Where information is preliminary, uncertain or based on an unconfirmed report, we will seek to make that distinction clear.

Terms such as reportedly, according to, unconfirmed, or industry speculation should only be used where appropriate and should not be presented as established fact.

We distinguish between:

Confirmed information

and

Reports, speculation, interpretation or opinion.

This distinction is particularly important when covering developing stories, product announcements, business developments and industry rumours.

Product, Technical and Specification Information

Aurea Regula frequently covers objects where technical details matter, including watches, writing instruments, leather goods, automobiles, tools and other products.

Where specifications are important to an article, we will make reasonable efforts to verify them through appropriate sources.

We will not knowingly present an unverified specification as established fact.

Where manufacturers, retailers or other sources provide conflicting specifications, we may identify the discrepancy rather than presenting one version as certain without sufficient evidence.

Aurea Regula will also distinguish between:

• manufacturer specifications;
• historical records;
• editorial observations;
• expert opinions;
• reader or community claims.

Reviews, Recommendations and Editorial Opinion

Not every statement published by Aurea Regula is intended to represent an objective fact.

Reviews, essays and opinion pieces may contain editorial judgement and interpretation.

We aim to distinguish clearly between factual information and our own assessment.

We will not claim to have personally:

• purchased;
• tested;
• handled;
• inspected;
• worn;
• tasted;
• visited;
• or otherwise experienced

a product, place or service unless that experience actually occurred.

Where an assessment is based on published specifications, photographs, interviews, demonstrations or other sources rather than first-hand experience, we will make that clear where relevant.

Historical and Cultural Content

Aurea Regula publishes articles about history, craftsmanship, design, brands, architecture, culture and heritage.

Historical information can sometimes vary between sources.

Where historical claims are significant to an article, we will seek appropriate documentary or specialist sources and avoid presenting disputed interpretations as undisputed fact.

Where credible sources disagree, we may acknowledge the disagreement and explain the basis for the interpretation presented.

Explaining Complex Information Clearly

Accuracy does not require unnecessary complexity.

Aurea Regula aims to explain technical terms, historical developments, statistics and specialist subjects in language that readers can understand.

Where a subject involves uncertainty, competing interpretations or limitations in available evidence, we will seek to explain those limitations rather than creating false certainty.

Our objective is not simply to provide information, but to help readers understand its context and significance.

Artificial Intelligence and Fact-Checking

Artificial intelligence tools may assist Aurea Regula with research, drafting, translation, organisation, editing or other editorial tasks.

However, AI-generated information is not automatically treated as verified information.

AI systems can produce inaccurate, incomplete or fabricated information. Accordingly, material factual claims generated or assisted by AI may require independent verification before publication.

Aurea Regula remains responsible for the accuracy of its published editorial content regardless of the tools used in its production.

This principle is also reflected in our Editorial Policy & Standards.

When Information Cannot Be Fully Verified

There may be circumstances where reliable information is incomplete, unavailable or contradictory.

In such cases, Aurea Regula may:

• seek additional sources;
• identify the information as unconfirmed;
• explain the uncertainty;
• present multiple credible interpretations;
• postpone publication;
• or decide not to publish the claim.

We believe acknowledging uncertainty is preferable to creating an appearance of certainty where the available evidence does not support it.

Corrections and Updates

Despite our fact-checking procedures, errors can occur.

When a material factual error is identified, Aurea Regula will assess the issue and, where appropriate, correct the article promptly.

Material corrections may be identified through a Correction or Updated note.

Articles may also be updated when significant new information becomes available.

Our approach to corrections and updates is set out in our:

Corrections & Updates Policy

Reader Feedback and Fact-Checking Requests

Readers are encouraged to contact Aurea Regula if they believe an article contains a factual error or requires clarification.

Please include:

• the article title or URL;
• the specific statement in question;
• an explanation of the issue;
• and, where possible, reliable supporting evidence.

Our editorial team will assess substantive claims and determine whether a correction, clarification or update is appropriate.

Please contact:

editor@aurearegula.com

For general enquiries:

contact@aurearegula.com

Our Editorial Standard

Aurea Regula believes that good fact-checking is not simply about finding a source.

It is about asking:

Where did this information come from?

How reliable is the source?

Can the claim be independently supported?

Is there another credible interpretation?

Are we presenting opinion as fact?

Are we being clear about what we know and what we do not know?

Our standard is straightforward:

Research properly.

Verify important claims.

Distinguish fact from opinion.

Acknowledge uncertainty.

Correct mistakes.

Respect the reader.

Related Editorial Standards

Fact-checking forms part of Aurea Regula's wider editorial framework.

Our related policies include:

• Editorial Policy & Standards
• Corrections & Updates Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Responsible AI Use & Editorial Ethics

Together, these policies establish the principles we aim to follow when researching, writing, reviewing, publishing and maintaining Aurea Regula's editorial content.