How we review

Where we are today

Golden Dojo is new. Right now our stories are research-based: we read manufacturer specifications, published standards, regulator guidance and reputable public sources, and we turn what we find into plain-language advice. We do not claim to have hands-on tested a product unless a story says so explicitly. Review-type stories carry a notice that explains this.

When we do begin hands-on testing, we will label those stories separately, describe the method, and keep research-based stories clearly distinct.

How we research

1. Define the decision. We start with the choice a reader is actually facing, not a list of products.
2. Collect primary information. Specifications, standards, test protocols, safety and regulatory guidance, and warranty terms.
3. Separate fact from marketing. We note which claims can be verified and which are adjectives.
4. Find the trade-offs. Most choices are a balance of cost, effort, size, durability and fit. We state the balance plainly.
5. Write a decision rule. Each story ends with a way to choose, not a ranking dressed as certainty.

What we do not do

• We do not invent test results, scores, ratings or personal anecdotes.
• We do not present prices as current. Prices change; always check the retailer.
• We do not let affiliate relationships influence recommendations or wording.

Update policy

Every story shows an updated date. We revisit stories when facts change (for example sale seasons, standards or product categories) and when readers point out problems. A date change means we re-checked the content, not that we added a keyword.

Corrections policy

If we get something wrong we correct it promptly. Material corrections are noted on the page. To report a mistake, use the contact form and choose “Report a correction”. See also our editorial policy.