Status and scope
This policy applies to editorial pages published under the DopeTech name: hands-on reviews, service evaluations, buying guides, comparisons, news analysis, video embeds and community summaries. It is a public operating commitment, not an accreditation, audit report or claim that every planned feature is already active.
We separate three things readers should never have to guess: what we observed, what another source says, and what is commercial.
Editorial independence
- Editorial conclusions and scores are not sold to manufacturers, vendors or affiliate partners.
- Payment, advertising or access does not guarantee coverage, a minimum score, favourable wording or an award.
- Writers should disclose a material financial, employment, family or advisory relationship with a subject and step aside where it could compromise judgement.
- Loan units, free samples, travel, event access and pre-release briefings are disclosed where they materially help readers assess the review.
- Vendors may check factual details before publication, but do not receive a right to rewrite a verdict.
If commercial influence cannot be managed with disclosure and separation, the content should not be presented as an independent review.
Know what the verdict is based on
Tested
DopeTech had direct access and performed the checks described on the page. Conditions and meaningful limitations should be stated.
First look
Early impressions from limited access. It is not a final review and should not carry the same evidentiary weight.
Research-based
Analysis of attributable documentation, data, demonstrations or reputable third-party evidence without a full hands-on test.
Community signal
An aggregate or summary of user input. It is kept distinct from the editorial score and may be subject to verification and moderation.
A page should not imply hands-on experience merely because product imagery, a vendor demo or a YouTube video is available. Embedded video must be attributed to its channel or creator.
Sources, accuracy and right of reply
Primary material—direct measurements, product documentation, contracts, release notes, regulator records and on-record responses—is preferred when available. Significant claims from other publishers should be linked or named. Anonymous sourcing is reserved for information with a clear public-interest reason and should be corroborated where practical.
Serious criticism should be put to the relevant company with a reasonable opportunity to respond. A missing response does not prevent publication, but the page should say when a response was sought and not received.
Affiliate links, sponsorships and supplied products
Affiliate links may earn DopeTech a commission after a qualifying action. They are identified near the recommendation or in a prominent page disclosure. Affiliate availability can influence which buying options are shown, but must not determine the review verdict. Our fuller explanation is in the affiliate disclosure.
Sponsored, partner-produced, vendor-submitted and paid-placement material must use an unambiguous label before the reader engages with it. It must not be styled or described as an independent review.
AI-assisted editorial work
Automation may assist with transcription, research organisation, accessibility text, translation, summaries or draft structure. A responsible person remains accountable for verification and publication. We do not treat generated text as a source. Material synthetic media and AI-generated demonstrations should be labelled where a reasonable reader could otherwise mistake them for authentic evidence.
Updates and corrections
Technology changes. Reviews may be updated after firmware releases, pricing changes, security events or longer-term use. Material changes should include an update note or changed date. A factual error should be corrected promptly and, when it affected a verdict or could materially mislead, explained on the page.
Reasonable disagreement with a conclusion is not itself an error. Challenges should include the page URL, disputed statement and supporting evidence.
Enterprise and vendor reviews
Enterprise services may be evaluated using documentation, configured demonstrations, sandbox access, reference conversations and time-limited trials. Any paid assessment, custom benchmark or commissioned report requires a separate scope and must be labelled. Security and compliance capabilities are described from attributable evidence; DopeTech does not certify a vendor unless the page explicitly identifies a qualified independent certification.
Challenge the record
Send correction evidence or an editorial concern to editorial@dopetech.au. Do not send vulnerability details to that address; use the security reporting process.