Trust · Editorial Standards
How we research, review, and correct our analysis
The standards behind every Redress Compliance guide: how we source claims, who reviews them, how we disclose AI use, and how we fix mistakes.
The standards behind every Redress Compliance guide: how we source claims, who reviews them, how we disclose AI use, and how we fix mistakes.
This page explains how Redress Compliance produces the analysis you read. We publish it because trust is earned by showing the work, not by asserting authority.
We start from primary sources. For any claim about price, metric, or contract term, the reference is the vendor own published material or a regulator filing.
We follow Google guidance on creating helpful, people first content and its helpful content guidance.
Observations from client work are attributed to a named advisor and carry a dated range. We never present an undated anecdote as data.
How we rank a source before we cite it
| Tier | Example | How we use it |
|---|---|---|
| Primary | Vendor price list, license terms | Cited directly for any pricing claim |
| Regulatory | Filings, court records | Cited for legal and audit claims |
| First hand | Our engagement file | Cited with a named advisor and year |
Every page has a named author drawn from our two co founders and practice leads. A second qualified reviewer checks vendor specific claims before publishing.
Author identities and roles are published on our management team page, each linked to a public profile. We map structured data to Google Article schema.
When we find an error, we fix it on the page and move the last updated date forward. Material corrections are noted in the page text.
The standard advice is that AI assisted drafting should be hidden to protect credibility. We disagree. Across hundreds of buyer side engagements, readers trust disclosure more than polish, because they can see who stands behind the claim and how it was checked. The buyer side move is to disclose AI assistance plainly, attribute every figure to a named human and a dated source, and let the reader judge. We treat Google view on AI and content quality as the standard. Hiding the method is the faster way to lose trust.
Source: Redress Compliance advisory engagement file, 2024 to 2025.
Specific, dated, and attributable beats polished and anonymous, every time.
Use our analysis as a starting point, then verify against your own contract and the vendor current terms.
For the wider standard we follow, see the Google Search Essentials starter guide.
Named advisors write it, drawn from our two co founders and vendor practice leads. Each author is listed on the management team page with a public profile.
We disclose where AI assists drafting, and a named human reviews and edits every page before it is published. Figures are attributed to a dated source.
Every pricing claim is checked against the vendor own published price list or license terms, linked from the page, rather than a reseller summary.
Email the desk with the page URL and the disputed claim. We verify it against the primary source within five business days and correct the page if we are wrong.
We update a page whenever the underlying vendor terms change or we find an error, and we move the visible last updated date forward each time.
A named co founder or practice lead stands behind every page, with a verifiable profile, so accountability is never anonymous.
Confidential consultation. No follow up sales call unless you ask for one.
Vendor signals, commercial signals, settlement signals, and the broader competitive leverage signals across all eleven vendor practices.
Once a month. Audit patterns, renewal benchmarks, vendor commercial signals across Oracle, Microsoft, SAP, Salesforce, IBM, Broadcom, AWS, Google Cloud, ServiceNow, Workday, Cisco, and the GenAI vendors. No follow up sales pressure.
Free providers (Gmail, Yahoo, Outlook) cannot subscribe. Work email only. Unsubscribe in one click.
