Editorial standards

The Public Investor is a personal blog about the companies and infrastructure behind AI. I write to explain what changed, why it matters and what remains uncertain. These are the standards I use for briefs, longer posts and newsletter editions.

Accuracy before a strong story

I check material factual claims against the underlying evidence and link to the sources that support them. Company announcements, independent reporting and my own interpretation are identified as different things. If I cannot support a claim, I qualify it or leave it out. Headlines and summaries should reflect the evidence rather than exaggerate what a post establishes.

Clear distinctions and uncertainty

A fact, a company statement, an estimate, a forecast and a target are not interchangeable. Announced or planned capacity is not operating capacity; funding is not revenue; a demonstration is not proof of a commercially viable product. I explain relevant dates, units, assumptions and limitations, and distinguish my analysis from reported information. A post reflects the evidence available at its stated date, not a promise that it remains current.

Sources and responsible use of tools

I credit original reporting and research, represent quotations in context and avoid presenting another writer’s work as my own. Routine research, drafting and editing tools do not require a blanket label. They do not replace checking: AI output is not evidence, and generated quotations, interviews, citations or observations must not be presented as real. I do not invent facts to fill a gap. More detail is in Sourcing.

Fairness and independence

I assess a claim on its evidence, including evidence that challenges my interpretation. I distinguish criticism of a business or idea from unsupported accusations about a person. Where a serious disputed allegation warrants it, I seek relevant context and a response where reasonably possible. Silence is not treated as an admission. There is no implied newsroom, separate editorial board or independent compliance review behind this personal blog.

Any material relationship connected to a post belongs with that post. Sponsored material and commission-bearing recommendations, if introduced, must be clearly identified where readers encounter them. Payment must not buy a favorable conclusion, hide a relevant fact or prevent a warranted correction. The site’s Disclosures page explains this approach.

Corrections and updates

If I establish a material error, I correct it and add a dated note explaining the change. New developments are treated as updates; the original publication date stays visible. Minor edits that do not change meaning may be made without a correction note. See Corrections. To flag an error, email wockstar121@gmail.com with the post’s link, the disputed statement and supporting evidence.

Information, not a promise of returns

Posts share general information and personal analysis, not advice tailored to a reader’s finances or a promise that an investment will succeed. Investing can involve substantial losses. Readers should check original sources, evaluate their own circumstances and do their own research. The financial-risk notice is on Privacy. A disclaimer does not excuse misleading claims, unsupported reporting or a failure to correct an error.