GetInstantProof
Editorial standards
Every public page should answer one clear customer question, state its limitations and make jurisdiction-sensitive claims traceable to reliable sources.
Official source → checked context → bounded public guidance.
Answer first
The direct answer belongs near the top, before long background explanation.
Separate fact from assumption
Examples and checklists distinguish observed facts, third-party information, opinions and later notes.
Do not manufacture precision
Dates, monetary limits, filing periods, court names and procedural steps should not be guessed from memory or copied from another jurisdiction. If a current official source has not been verified, the wording should say so.
Use synthetic examples
Worked examples should be fictional and labelled so no one mistakes them for a real customer outcome.
Review sensitive content
Jurisdiction-sensitive, deadline-sensitive and safety-sensitive material requires appropriate source and review checks before publication.
AI-assisted drafting still needs source discipline
AI can help organise and draft public material, but it must not be treated as the authority for a legal rule. Jurisdiction-sensitive claims should remain traceable to the underlying official source and reviewed for context.
Keep product claims bounded
Public copy must not imply that GetInstantProof authenticates evidence, guarantees admissibility, proves a claim or replaces a qualified professional. Product descriptions should match what the tool actually does.
Update dates only after a substantive review
A reviewed or modified date should move when the underlying content has genuinely been reviewed or materially changed, not merely because layout, styling or unrelated code changed.