Hands-on evidence
A review identifies which account and feature I personally used, approximately when I tested it, what task I attempted, what happened, and what I would do differently. Untested features are labeled as provider-documented rather than presented as firsthand conclusions.
Changing facts
Rates, fees, promotions, interfaces, insurance programs, and eligibility rules are dated and checked against primary sources. A visible update date does not imply every historical sentence has remained unchanged.
Fair comparisons
Comparisons use the same task, account type, security, order type, and observation period where practical. Account-specific results such as transfer speed or securities-lending income are not treated as universal performance.
Affiliate independence
Compensation is disclosed clearly near the link. Approval or commission does not purchase a positive conclusion. Negative reviews should direct readers to a tested alternative when one exists, but the alternative relationship is disclosed just as clearly.
Corrections
Material corrections should be made in the article instead of silently hidden. If a product adds a missing feature—as Robinhood did with its Dividend Tracker—the current review should acknowledge that the earlier criticism is no longer accurate.
Privacy and screenshots
Screenshots are cropped or redacted to remove account identifiers, balances, share counts, current concentrated holdings, notifications, and metadata that could expose the author's family or financial security. Redaction must not change the evidence supporting the conclusion.