Editorial standards and corrections
AssetBuilding.org aims to publish clear, independent and evidence-led research for investors. Every page must support a defined investor decision, distinguish current evidence from historical context and explain material limits or uncertainty.
These standards apply to research, decision guides, historical resources and updates published by the AssetBuilding Editorial Team. They also contain our complete corrections process.
What standards guide our research?
Our research is guided by investor usefulness, current accuracy, cross-asset neutrality and claim-level accountability. We explain roles, risks and trade-offs without presenting one asset class or investment approach as suitable for everyone.
Before publication, each page must have a clear purpose, sufficient evidence and an editorial review. Material statements are checked again against their sources after drafting. Unsupported statements are narrowed, qualified or removed.
Which sources do we rely on?
We use the strongest suitable source available for each material claim. Official and primary sources take priority, especially for legal, regulatory, statistical and programme information.
- Legislation, regulators, government agencies, central banks, official statistics and other primary authorities.
- Original peer-reviewed research, institutional datasets and accountable research reports.
- High-quality academic, policy or financial synthesis with transparent sourcing.
- Reputable reporting or specialist analysis used for context.
- Search results, snippets, social posts and AI outputs used only to discover sources.
Search snippets and AI-generated answers do not serve as evidence. When a lower-level source is necessary, the page must reflect its limits. Readers can find the publication’s current evidence-led work in Research.
How do we separate historical and current material?
Historical sources can establish what AssetBuilding.org or another publisher covered at a particular time. They cannot establish that an old statistic, programme description or investment conclusion remains accurate today.
We identify historical material by date or period and verify current statements independently. Archived pages may be used to reconstruct a title, subject, scope or historical argument. They are not republished merely because AssetBuilding.org now controls the domain.
Copyright and attribution still apply to historical material. Substantial historical text or documents are excluded unless the necessary rights are documented.
How are articles reviewed and updated?
The AssetBuilding Editorial Team reviews pages for clarity, evidence, balance, search intent and technical accuracy before publication. Review includes checking material claims, source links, dates, jurisdictions, limitations and the separation between historical and current information.
Published pages may be reviewed when evidence changes, a programme or law is updated, a source becomes unavailable or a reader identifies a possible problem. A visible update date may change after a substantive review. A changed date does not imply that every source or conclusion changed.
How do we manage conflicts of interest?
Editorial conclusions must remain independent of commercial interests. AssetBuilding.org is funded by THREE3 BV and currently has no sponsors, advertisers, affiliate arrangements or promoted investment products.
If a future commercial, ownership or personal relationship could reasonably affect how a reader evaluates an article, the relationship will be disclosed on the relevant page. Sponsored material, if ever accepted, must be labelled and cannot determine the conclusion of editorial research. The About page identifies the publisher and current funding arrangement.
How can readers report an error?
Readers can report a possible factual, sourcing or attribution error by emailing contact@assetbuilding.org. Please include the page URL, the statement in question, why it may be wrong and any source that supports the concern.
Privacy requests, copyright concerns and broader editorial questions may use the same address. The Contact page explains the main reasons to reach the publication.
What happens when a correction is needed?
The Editorial Team checks the disputed statement against the cited evidence and any stronger current source. If a material error is confirmed, the page is corrected promptly and a dated correction note explains the substantive change.
- Record the report and identify the exact claim.
- Inspect the cited source and any relevant stronger evidence.
- Decide whether to correct, qualify, remove or retain the statement.
- Update the page and its supporting links where needed.
- Add a dated correction note for a material factual change.
- Respond to the person who reported it where practical.
Minor spelling, grammar, formatting or link repairs may be made without a correction note when they do not change the meaning. A disagreement over interpretation will not be presented as a factual correction unless the evidence shows that the published statement was inaccurate or materially incomplete.