Skip to content
Version 1.2 · Last updated 27 August 2026

Editorial Policy

How Coda One produces content, where AI fits in our workflow, and the rules our editors follow — including when we cover our own competitors.

Effective date
16 April 2026
Last updated
27 August 2026
Version
1.2
Responsible editor
Miles Wong, founder

1. Why this policy exists

Coda One publishes reviews, comparisons, tutorials, and guides about AI writing tools, AI detection, and adjacent software. Because we also build AI tools ourselves, and because some of the tools we cover are direct competitors or commercial partners, we owe readers a transparent account of how our content is produced and what could bias it.

This policy is also our public commitment to Google's E-E-A-T standard (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness). Everything below is operational, not aspirational — our editors are expected to follow it, and reviewers cite it when rejecting drafts.

One rule above all others: if you can't verify a claim from a primary source, you don't publish it. Applies to AI-generated drafts and human-written ones equally.

2. Who writes our content

Content is produced by the Coda One editorial team — a small in-house team, not a freelance network. Every article and tool page is published under that collective byline.

We do not publish under individual author names. Until August 2026 this page named three researchers and linked to profile pages for them. Those profiles were not reachable — the whole directory was disallowed in our robots.txt — and the same names appeared with different job titles in different places on this site. A byline a reader cannot check is not a credential, so we removed it rather than dress it up. If we onboard a named reviewer whose identity and work can be verified independently, the byline will return with a public, crawlable profile.

Accountability sits with a person, not a pseudonym: Miles Wong, founder of Coda Web3 Creative Ltd, is the responsible editor and answers editorial complaints at miles@codaone.ai.

3. How AI is used in our content production

We build AI tools. We also use AI tools in our editorial workflow — honestly and transparently. The table below sets out where AI is allowed, where it is not, and the rule that applies at each stage.

Stage AI allowed? Rule
Research and background reading Yes AI used to summarise sources; a human editor still reads every cited primary source.
First-draft writing Scaffolding only A human author rewrites every paragraph. No AI-drafted sentence ships unchanged.
Factual claims No Every benchmark, price, date, statistic, or quote is confirmed against a primary source by a human.
Hands-on tool testing Human only We pay for paid tiers where necessary. AI cannot "pretend" to have used a tool — if we didn't test it, we say so.
Headlines, meta, alt text Yes Allowed with human approval before publish.
Final review Human only A second human editor signs off on every publication.

Our rule of thumb: AI is a research assistant, not a reporter. A reader who asks "did a human actually try this?" must always be able to get "yes" as an answer for any hands-on claim on our site.

4. Fact-checking

Every article with factual claims passes through a three-step check before publication:

  1. Author self-check. The author lists every factual claim and the primary source that supports it.
  2. Reviewer cross-check. A second editor opens the primary source and confirms the claim. No secondary-source citations of third-party summaries unless the primary is inaccessible.
  3. Freshness check at publication. Pricing, feature lists, and dates are confirmed within 14 days of the go-live date.

Benchmarks (for example, the per-sample error rates published at /ai-detector/accuracy) are run by a human tester on the date cited, with methodology documented. We do not reuse third-party benchmark numbers without running our own, or without explicitly attributing the external study.

The corollary, which costs us something: we publish no pass rates against third-party detectors. Turnitin, GPTZero, Copyleaks, ZeroGPT and Originality.ai all forbid automated evaluation in their terms, so we have never measured our humanizer against any of them. A number we cannot produce is a number we do not print — not in a benchmark, a comparison table, a meta description, or an app store listing.

When reviewing AI-drafted content, we fact-check in this order (highest risk first): dates, statistics, person names, product features, pricing, quotes, URLs. Every one of these categories is something AI models routinely get wrong.

5. Corrections policy

We make mistakes. When we do, we handle them openly:

  • Minor corrections (typos, broken links, small formatting fixes): corrected silently with no notice.
  • Substantive corrections (any change to a factual claim, price, date, benchmark, or quote): a dated correction note is appended at the foot of the article describing what was wrong and what it now says. The URL is preserved; we do not delete-and-repost.
  • Major corrections (a claim that significantly misled readers): the correction note is also placed at the top of the article for at least 30 days. For evergreen pieces, we email subscribers who engaged with the original.

Corrections are logged internally with article URL, date, original text, corrected text, and responsible editor. The log is audited during quarterly editorial reviews.

Readers can flag an error by emailing miles@codaone.ai. We acknowledge receipt within 2 working days and resolve within 10.

6. Sources and citation

  • Every factual claim links to or names a primary source — vendor documentation, company filings, peer-reviewed research, government data, or on-the-record statements.
  • Where a secondary source is used, it is named and the reader is told it is secondary.
  • Vendor marketing pages are labelled as vendor sources, not neutral sources.
  • Quotes are verbatim, dated, and attributed. We do not paraphrase quotes and present them as direct speech.
  • Screenshots are dated in the caption and retaken at least annually for evergreen content.

8. How we evaluate tools — including our competitors

Coda One builds tools of its own — AI Detector, AI Humanizer, AI Rewriter and Grammar Checker — which means we cover a space that includes our direct competitors. The rules below apply to every tool we review, ours or otherwise.

  • Same methodology across all tools. Every comparison page documents its test set, inputs, scoring rubric, and date. We run our own tools through the same tests and publish the results whether we win or lose.
  • No "alternatives to Coda One" pages. We do not author pages designed to steer traffic back to ourselves. Our comparison pages cover competitors on the merits.
  • Negative findings about Coda One are published. If a competitor's tool beats ours on a specific benchmark, we say so in the comparison, date it, and link back to our tool page where improvement work is tracked.
  • Vendor claim rights exist and are labelled. Tool vendors may claim their listing to correct factual errors; claims do not grant control over reviews, ratings, or rankings.

This is a deliberate departure from most in-house media operations, which protect the house. We don't — because publishing where our own products lose is the single biggest trust signal we can offer readers.

9. Conflicts of interest

Coda Web3 Creative Ltd builds and sells AI writing tools. This is itself a structural conflict when writing about the same category. We manage it in three ways:

  1. Full disclosure of Coda One's commercial interest on every comparison page that includes a Coda One product.
  2. Self-critical coverage is required. A Coda One tool appearing in a comparison must also have its weaknesses documented in that comparison — the same standard we apply to competitors.
  3. Individual disclosures. If anyone who worked on a piece has a personal stake (prior employment, equity, family member at a covered vendor), it is disclosed at the top of that article. They may also recuse themselves.

We do not take equity, share-for-coverage arrangements, or undisclosed retainers from any vendor we cover.

10. AI content labelling for readers

We also label for readers when a piece of content is produced with unusually high AI involvement:

  • Articles meeting our standard rule (Section 3) are not labelled — human authorship with AI assistance is our baseline, and applies to most pages.
  • Articles where AI wrote a substantial portion that we elected to keep (rare; mostly programmatic pages for pure utility content) are labelled "AI-assisted — human-reviewed" at the foot of the article.
  • Pure AI-generated pages with only automated review are not published. If this ever changes, it will be disclosed before any such page goes live.

11. Author byline attribution

Bylines are how we assign accountability, which means they only work if a reader can check them. Ours are collective, and the rules below say exactly what that does and does not claim.

  • Every blog post, comparison, and tool page is published under "Coda One Editorial Team". That attribution means the team wrote or edited the piece and stands behind it. It does not mean no human wrote it, and it does not imply a larger team than we have.
  • Legal and policy pages (About, Terms, Privacy, this Editorial Policy, Refund Policy, Cookie Policy) are attributed to Coda Web3 Creative Ltd, the publishing company.
  • The named accountable person is Miles Wong, founder. Editorial complaints, corrections, and appeals reach him at miles@codaone.ai.
  • Named personal bylines are not in use. They will return only alongside a public profile page that search engines are allowed to crawl and that a reader can verify off-site.

What we do not do

  • We do not invent authors or credentials. We removed three named "researchers" from this site in August 2026 for exactly that reason: they were created to strengthen an E-E-A-T signal, their profile pages were blocked from crawlers, and no reader could confirm that any of them existed.
  • We do not publish testimonials we cannot attribute to a real, consenting, named customer. The initials-only quotes that used to sit on /pricing and /ai-humanizer were removed in the same pass.
  • We do not ship content under a name that has not actually reviewed it.

12. Governance, appeals, and contact

  • Responsible editor. Miles Wong, founder — miles@codaone.ai.
  • Escalation path. Complaints about editorial decisions, or disputes about a correction, can be escalated to the CEO at miles@codaone.ai. The CEO will respond within 10 working days.
  • Review cycle. This policy is reviewed at least annually, or whenever a material change to AI-assistance practice occurs.

Direct contact