Editorial policy

Customer Comms Lab selects topics around customer communication and the work needed to complete it. Coverage includes competing products, category boundaries and process improvements that do not require a purchase.

An article should explain the task a product may help with, the circumstances that justify considering alternatives, the evidence available and the details still requiring verification. A product's commercial relationship with the publication is not a substitute for that analysis.

We distinguish vendor statements, editorial interpretation and observed evidence. We do not invent hands-on testing, user testimonials, audience statistics or performance improvements. Examples written to illustrate a process are identified as illustrative or hypothetical.

Product comparisons should use the same task, team assumptions and workload. We avoid treating different billing units as equivalent or combining separately purchased products into a fictional plan. Missing evidence is labeled as uncertainty.

A provider may submit documentation or request a correction. It may not purchase a more favorable editorial conclusion. Sponsored material, if accepted, must be identifiable as such rather than presented as independent research.

Material factual changes should be reviewed in the affected product article and related comparisons. A review date should reflect a real source check, not merely a cosmetic date change.

Readers can report errors through [email protected]. Please include the specific statement and supporting source. See corrections, methodology and affiliate disclosure.