Our editorial manifesto
This page states the principles that govern what we publish and what we refuse to publish. Every other page on this site can be measured against it. If a review, a ranking, or a claim of ours breaks one of these commitments, tell us and we will correct it.
Our principles
Truth over speed
We publish when a claim is confirmed, not when a tool is trending. A late page that is right, dated, and updatable serves a reader better than a fast one that restates a launch announcement. If a number cannot be confirmed before publication, it does not go on the page.
Evidence over opinion
Every factual claim carries a source, a verification, or stated reasoning. Our method is documentary: official documentation, live vendor pricing pages, and aggregated reports from independent user platforms. We do not run hands-on tests, and we never write research as though it were first-hand use. What can be verified, we verify; what cannot, we label.
Research over repetition
A page goes live only when it adds information or synthesis that the existing coverage does not already carry. We do not publish a reworded version of what is already out there. When we have nothing new to add to a subject, we leave it alone.
Quality over quantity
Nothing here is published to hit a quota or keep a publishing streak alive. We publish fewer pages than a content calendar would demand, and each one exists because a reader has a decision in front of them. A page with no reader task attached does not ship.
Transparency over marketing
We disclose everything that could change how you read us: affiliate relationships, the paid submission options we offer, and how AI is used in producing this site. The affiliate disclosure appears site-wide and next to the links themselves. When a vendor provides free access or credits, the review says so.
Independence over sponsorship
No commercial relationship buys a score, a ranking position, or a verdict. Placement is never weighted by payout, and tools with no affiliate program are covered on the same terms as tools that pay. Paid options are published openly. They buy speed or a labeled slot, never a rank.
Clarity over jargon
We write for a reader making a purchase decision, not for other reviewers. The prose is dense but plain, and a technical term gets explained the first time it appears. Where we are uncertain, the uncertainty goes into the sentence rather than behind careful phrasing.
Correction over defensiveness
When we get something wrong, we fix it. Anything that changes the substance of a page gets a dated note; typos and broken links are corrected quietly. The original publication date is preserved and never reset, so a correction reads as a change rather than a quiet rewrite. Accuracy matters more here than being right the first time.
What we will not publish
- — Repackaged press releases. A launch announcement is where research starts, never what gets published.
- — “Best” lists with nothing behind the ranking. If we cannot show why one tool placed above another, the list does not go live.
- — Claims whose sourcing does not hold. A figure that traces back to an unsourced blog post or a dead link comes off the page.
- — First-person experience we do not have. We run no hands-on tests, so we never write as though we did, in any tense.
- — Volume filler. Pages produced to feed a schedule, with no decision they help a reader make, do not get published whatever the argument for them.
- — Single-source rumors presented as fact. A shutdown, a price change, or an acquisition is published as confirmed only when it is documented, and labeled unconfirmed when it is not.
- — A score or a ranking position in exchange for money. Sponsored placement can be bought, is labeled as sponsored, and never becomes a ranking position.
What this looks like in practice
The principles show up first in how claims are worded. Every substantive claim in a review belongs to one of five evidence classes, carried in the wording of the claim: Verified (confirmed against an official document, a live pricing page, or a policy), User-reported (reported across multiple independent sources such as G2, Trustpilot, Reddit, and Capterra), Vendor-reported (the company's own claim, with no independent confirmation), Estimated (our calculation from assumptions we state), and Unknown (undisclosed or not confirmable). There is no “tested by us” label, because we do not test products ourselves. Our methodology page publishes the five labels in full and documents how a review is built.
They show up next as dates. Reviews carry a dated pricing check and a last-updated date, and the original publication date is recorded and never changed. The last-updated date moves only when something material changed, not when a page was touched. Corrections follow published response targets: minor fixes within 72 hours, material errors in price, feature, date, or availability within 24 hours of confirmation, and any error that changes a score or a recommendation on the same day it is confirmed, with a note on the page. Vendors may report factual errors like any reader; they do not preview, edit, or approve reviews. The full corrections policy, including how ethical and legal issues are handled, has its own page.
They show up last in how the site is funded. AI Tools Police is reader-supported through affiliate links, which may earn us a commission at no extra cost to you. Commission rate and affiliate status never affect a score, a ranking, a “best for” pick, or whether a tool gets covered at all. Two paid options are published on our submit page: a $49 one-time expedited review, which is scored on the same evidence as any other and can score low, and a $99 per month sponsored placement, which is labeled as sponsored wherever it appears. Scores are capped by evidence, so no tool receives a perfect score and a top pick usually lands in the mid-to-high range. Our affiliate and monetization standards are published on their own page.
Hold us to it
Editorial responsibility for every page sits with a named human, Mucahit Kaya, and not with any tool used to produce it. If a price is stale, a source does not support the claim built on it, or a verdict looks unearned, write to us. We will check the claim against its source and either correct the page on the schedule above or explain why the original stands.