Editorial policy

Bold Policy Briefing aims to make public-policy language easier to inspect without making uncertain or contested points sound settled. We distinguish explanation from opinion and take responsibility for correcting mistakes.

Accuracy and sourcing

We check factual statements against suitable source material and keep claims within what that material supports. We make clear when a statement describes a proposal, an intended outcome or an established result. Where evidence or interpretation is contested, we describe the uncertainty rather than smoothing it away. We do not claim original research unless a piece actually reports it.

Independence and judgement

Editorial decisions are made for clarity, relevance and accuracy. A contribution, collaboration or commercial arrangement does not buy a favourable conclusion or editorial control. We distinguish analysis from advocacy and avoid presenting a policy preference as a neutral fact.

Corrections

If a reader spots an error, they can contact us with the passage and any relevant context. We review the point, correct material errors and make the correction clear where appropriate. Minor edits for clarity may be made without changing the substance of a piece.

Partner material and illustrations

Partner or sponsored material is labelled clearly so readers can tell it apart from independent editorial work. Any partner placement is identified as such. Some illustrations may be AI-generated; when used, they are identified so readers are not left to mistake them for documentary images.