Evidence-backed publishing standard

Editorial methodology for tool and route evaluation

This page explains how we evaluate tools and buying pages before publishing recommendations. We favor conservative claims, practical implementation details, and evidence links over broad product hype.

Core evaluation criteria

  1. Workflow-fit: can a real L&D team ship and update content faster on one defined workflow?
  2. Governance: are approval paths, version control, and audit traces clear for compliance-sensitive use?
  3. Localization: can teams support multilingual quality without rebuilding content from scratch?
  4. Implementation difficulty: how much setup, integration, and ongoing maintenance load is required?

Editorial workflow

  1. Collect high-intent buyer questions from solution and compare routes.
  2. Pull evidence from checklist and implementation guidance sources.
  3. Translate guidance into buyer checklists and decision matrices.
  4. Prefer claims that can be validated in pilot windows (2-4 weeks).
  5. Publish only after internal link checks and build verification.

Claim boundaries

  • No invented ROI percentages or unsupported benchmark claims.
  • No legal interpretation beyond cited public guidance.
  • Recommendations are framed as pilot decisions, not universal rankings.
  • Pages are updated as workflows or governance requirements materially change.

Evidence references used in Tavily research

Evidence snapshot date: from ops/tavily-deepresearch-2026-02-17.md.

AI L&D tech evaluation checklist route Solutions hub Compare hub Homepage