Last updated: 4 September 2026
This page describes how Amuse Network decides what to publish, how we check it, and how we keep commercial relationships out of editorial judgement. We publish it so you can hold us to it.
What we are trying to do
Explain how networks work accurately enough that a specialist would not wince, and clearly enough that a curious non-specialist can follow. Where those two goals conflict, accuracy wins and we work harder on the sentence.
Sourcing
Our sourcing hierarchy, strongest first:
- Primary standards and specifications — IEEE, ITU-T, IETF RFCs and Internet-Drafts, 3GPP, W3C, ISO/IEC, and the Wi-Fi Alliance’s published certification material.
- Primary operator and regulator documents — incident post-mortems published by the affected company, regulatory filings and decisions, official statistics agencies.
- Peer-reviewed research — read in the original, not through a press release.
- Vendor documentation — useful for how a specific product behaves, treated as a claim by an interested party rather than as neutral fact.
- Reputable trade press — used to find a story, not as the basis for a factual claim.
A number that cannot be traced to a source at one of the first three levels does not get published as a number. We describe the behaviour qualitatively instead. We would rather say “meaningfully faster under good conditions” than invent a percentage.
Verification
- Every specification figure is checked against the standard or the certification document itself.
- Every incident we describe is checked against the affected party’s own account, or a detailed technical analysis, before we name it. If we cannot confirm it, we leave it out — including well-known stories that turn out to rest on nobody’s actual record.
- Every study is checked for authors, year, venue and what it actually found. Popular misstatements of famous studies are common and we try hard not to repeat them.
- Every external link is retrieved before publication so that it exists and says what we claim it says.
Uncertainty
Where evidence is contested, incomplete or vendor-supplied, we say so in the article rather than smoothing it into confidence. Where a claim is our judgement rather than a finding, we frame it as judgement. Where a platform’s behaviour is undocumented and changes without notice — recommendation and ranking systems, most obviously — we say that plainly instead of presenting folklore as mechanism.
Corrections
We correct errors visibly. A substantive correction — anything that changes the meaning of a claim — is noted at the foot of the article with the date and a description of what changed. Typos and broken links are fixed silently. We do not delete an article to make an error disappear; if a piece is withdrawn, the URL stays live with an explanation.
Report an error to [email protected]. We acknowledge within one business day and aim to resolve within three.
Independence from commercial relationships
These rules are absolute:
- We do not sell coverage. No payment influences whether a subject is covered or what we conclude about it.
- We do not publish sponsored content dressed as editorial. Any commercial content is labelled as such, unambiguously, at the top of the page.
- Advertisers, sponsors and affiliate partners do not see articles before publication and have no right of review or approval.
- We do not sell, insert or swap links in existing editorial articles.
- Affiliate links, where used, are disclosed on the page. A commission never determines a recommendation, and we recommend products we would not earn anything from whenever they are the better answer.
- Contributors must disclose any financial interest, employment or consulting relationship with a company they write about. Where the relationship is material, either the piece is reassigned or the interest is disclosed in the article.
Commercial terms are on our Advertise With Us page.
Gifts and review hardware
We do not accept payment, gifts, travel or hospitality in exchange for coverage. Review hardware provided by a manufacturer is disclosed in the article and returned, or its retention is disclosed. Access to a briefing or an embargoed announcement never comes with conditions on what we may conclude; if it does, we decline the briefing.
Use of automated tools
Automated tools may assist with research collation, transcription, copy-editing and formatting. They do not replace verification: every factual claim in a published article is checked by a person against the primary sources listed above, and a human editor is responsible for the finished piece. We do not publish articles whose substance was generated without that check.
Comments
Comments are moderated for abuse, spam and personal information — not for disagreement. Correcting us in public is welcome and is one of the more useful things a reader can do. Comment terms are in our Terms & Conditions.
Privacy of sources
Where someone speaks to us on condition of anonymity and we agree, we keep that agreement.
Questions
Anything about this policy: [email protected].