Our editorial standards

Last reviewed: 11 June 2026

This page sets out the rules we hold ourselves to. They are not decorative — when a conflict comes up between being helpful and being accurate, accuracy wins.

Accuracy first

Claims about features, prices and limits are checked against the live product, not repeated from a competitor or an old article. When a figure could go stale — a price, a coin cost, a free-tier cap — we date it and revisit it.

If we get something wrong, we fix it in place and, where the error was material, say what changed. We would rather publish a correction than quietly edit and pretend.

Independence from money

Commercial relationships do not buy coverage, ranking or kinder language. A platform we earn from can still receive a lukewarm verdict, and a platform we earn nothing from can still be praised. The financial side is explained openly in our Affiliate Disclosure; the testing side is governed by our Testing Methodology.

Sourcing

Where we describe how a technology works, we lean on primary and well-established sources rather than hearsay. Where a claim is ours — "we found memory held up across sessions" — it comes from first-hand testing, and we say so.

Use of AI tools

We use AI tools the way most modern publishers do: for drafting help, research and editing. No page ships without a human deciding it is correct, useful and written in plain English. A reviewer's judgement, not a model's output, is what you are reading.

Updates and corrections

Spotted a mistake? Tell us. The fastest path is Contact, and we treat a credible correction request as a priority. The team and remit behind these standards are described on our About page, and everything here ultimately serves one job: making OurDream AI a resource you can rely on.