StackEvidence is built around a simple principle: important software decisions should be supported by evidence readers can inspect and understand.
These standards describe where our information comes from, how we check it, and how we keep editorial conclusions separate from commercial relationships.
We prioritize official pricing pages, product documentation, terms, acceptable-use policies, help centers, migration documentation, and other primary sources.
Independent sources may be used for additional context where useful, but important factual claims should be traceable to evidence.
Where practical, we create accounts and test real workflows.
Hands-on observations should be kept distinct from documentation-based claims so readers can understand whether a finding came from direct testing, published documentation, or editorial analysis.
Pricing, features, plan limits, affiliate programs, policies, and other commercial facts can change.
Important claims should carry a verification date and be rechecked when decisions depend on them or when material changes are discovered.
Documented facts, hands-on observations, and editorial interpretation should be clearly distinguished.
StackEvidence avoids presenting opinion or inference as verified fact.
Software that works well for one business may be a poor fit for another.
StackEvidence focuses on use cases, limitations, costs, policies, workflow requirements, and tradeoffs rather than collapsing every product into one universal numerical score.
StackEvidence may earn affiliate commissions, but affiliate compensation does not determine editorial conclusions.
Commercial relevance may be one factor in deciding which products deserve research attention, but compensation does not control the evidence presented or the conclusions reached.
Affiliate relationships are disclosed where relevant.
Software changes.
When a material error or outdated claim is identified, StackEvidence aims to correct or update the affected information and re-verify important facts when practical.
Readers should be able to understand: