Spixla’s editorial standard is to answer a clear reader question and make the evidence, uncertainty and commercial context understandable. This policy describes that standard; it does not certify that every older page has received a complete audit.
Sources and scope
Factual game guidance should start with publisher documentation, official support, patch notes and the correct platform listing. A publisher-authored post is different from a player contribution on the same community website. Consequential claims should link to the source that actually supports them.
Edition, region, platform, server and version can change an answer. Similar game names do not establish shared accounts or identical features. When a source is incomplete or an edition cannot be confirmed, the article should state the limit or withhold the claim.
AI assistance and editorial interpretation
Spixla uses AI-assisted research and drafting. AI output is not itself a factual source. A source-based explanation must not be presented as original gameplay testing, and the Spixla Editorial byline does not imply an independent human reviewer. Any named review or firsthand test needs a real contributor and a documented role.
Advice about player fit should explain its reasoning and trade-offs. Universal “best” claims, invented scores, guaranteed results and unsupported performance estimates do not meet this standard.
Dates and commercial context
A publication date marks the page’s publication. A source check is not automatically a substantive update. Material revisions should explain what changed; dates should not be refreshed merely to suggest new information.
A commercial offer is separate from a game’s features and platform support. Affiliate relationships should be visible, and a paid link should not be used as evidence for an editorial claim. See the disclosure, methodology and corrections policy for the associated standards.