Editorial policy

Open Civic Briefing aims to make public policy legible without pretending that difficult choices have simple answers. We separate explanation from opinion, take care with uncertainty and correct material errors plainly.

Accuracy and context

We check factual statements against appropriate source material and give concepts enough context to avoid changing their meaning through simplification. We distinguish a proposal from an adopted decision, an announced intention from implementation, and an evaluation from proof that one factor caused an outcome. When a point is uncertain or contested, the wording should say so.

Independence

Editorial decisions are made for the publication's readers. A partner or contributor does not receive control over editorial conclusions in exchange for support or participation. We do not invent sources, credentials, institutional positions or evidence, and we do not imply that a general explainer settles a specific policy question.

Corrections

If you notice a factual error or a misleading passage, contact us through the Contact page and identify the article and point at issue. We review correction requests and update material when a change is warranted. Significant corrections should be made clearly, so readers can tell what has changed rather than quietly losing the original error.

Partner material and illustrations

Material created with or supported by a partner is labelled so readers can distinguish it from independent editorial work. Partner placements are identified as such and do not imply endorsement of the linked organisation or its claims. Some illustrations may be AI-generated; where relevant, they are identified and are not presented as documentary evidence.