Traceable to the cited material.
The source must support the same subject, scope and timeframe. A source link is not decoration and should not be stretched to justify a broader claim.
PUBLISHING STANDARD
Useful claims
need visible limits.
Blancc separates sourced facts, editorial judgement and illustrative models so readers can see what supports a recommendation.
This policy applies to the Blancc insight library. It explains the standard future additions and substantive revisions must meet.
01 / THE STANDARD
The short answer.
- Trace factsMaterial factual claims should point to a source that directly supports the same claim.
- Label judgementA recommendation is analysis, not a universal fact or promised result.
- Date real changesVisible dates and structured dates move only after a meaningful review or revision.
- Correct openlyDecision-relevant errors are changed at source and recorded rather than hidden by new wording.
Clarity takes priority over search-engine phrasing. A citation does not make an adjacent opinion factual, and repeated wording does not make a claim more reliable.
02 / SOURCE HIERARCHY
Use the closest reliable evidence.
Blancc should use a primary source for a material factual claim whenever a relevant primary source exists.
- 01
First-hand Blancc evidence
Inspectable code, tools, artefacts, process records or approved project evidence can support claims about what Blancc actually built or observed. The method, date, scope and limitations must travel with any measurable claim. Internal evidence cannot establish an external law, platform rule or market-wide result.
- 02
Primary external sources
Legislation, regulators, government guidance, standards bodies, original research and official platform documentation are preferred for legal, technical, policy and product facts. The linked passage must directly support the wording used.
- 03
Method-transparent research
Independent research is useful when its author, sample, method, date, conflicts and limitations are available. One study does not become a universal benchmark, and correlation is not labelled as causation.
- 04
Credible secondary context
Specialist reporting and analysis can explain context or lead to a primary source. Secondary commentary does not replace a regulator, original dataset or product owner for a decision-critical fact.
- 05
Editorial judgement and illustrative models
Blancc’s synthesis can help readers make a decision, but it must be presented as a recommendation, framework, heuristic or example. It is not evidence of a client outcome, market average or guaranteed result.
When evidence is missing or conflicts.
Blancc should narrow, qualify or remove the claim, describe the uncertainty, and prefer the more authoritative current source. A broken link does not automatically make the underlying claim false, but the claim should be re-verified before its next substantive update.
03 / VISIBLE LABELS
Facts, judgement and examples are different.
A label should appear where a reader could reasonably mistake analysis or a hypothetical scenario for evidence.
An editorial decision rule.
A recommendation combines cited facts with Blancc’s interpretation of trade-offs. It should name the conditions that could make another choice more appropriate.
A hypothetical, not a case study.
An invented scenario is labelled “Illustrative example.” It cannot use a fictional client, metric or quotation in a way that suggests real work or observed performance.
A heuristic, not a benchmark.
A score, matrix or calculator explains its inputs, rules and limits. Directional output does not predict cost, compliance, delivery time, ranking or commercial success.
04 / DATES & REVISIONS
Freshness must reflect work done.
Blancc does not change a publication or update date merely to make an unchanged article look recent.
| Signal | When it changes | What stays aligned |
|---|---|---|
| Published | Only when the canonical article first becomes public. | Visible publication history and datePublished. |
| Updated | After a substantive change to facts, method, recommendation, scope, examples or limitations. | Visible date, dateModified, sitemap lastmod and feed data where applicable. |
| Reviewed | After relevant sources and the article are re-checked, even if the conclusion remains unchanged. | The visible review statement; a review does not silently rewrite publication history. |
| Correction note | When an error materially changes meaning or could affect a reader’s decision. | The corrected passage, the correction date and a concise explanation of what changed. |
Spelling, punctuation, accessibility and formatting repairs may be made without presenting the article as substantively new. A material change should be checked against the cited source again, not copied from an older summary.
05 / SOFTWARE & AI
Assistance is not authority.
Blancc may use software and generative AI to organise research, test structure, draft wording, edit code or identify questions worth checking.
What AI cannot establish
Generated text is not a source, expert opinion, client quotation, legal interpretation, benchmark or proof of an outcome. Material claims must be checked against inspectable evidence before publication.
Who the site names
Insight articles currently use Blancc as the organisational author. The site does not name an individual editor or human reviewer because no public role, identity and relevant experience have been verified for that attribution.
What must not be invented
Software assistance must not create credentials, lived experience, clients, case studies, testimonials, research samples, statistics, quotations, source access dates or review activity that did not occur.
What publication means
Blancc remains responsible for the material it publishes. Mentioning a tool or model does not transfer that responsibility or imply that the tool endorses the article.
06 / CORRECTIONS
Show us the exact problem.
A useful correction identifies the page, disputed wording, reason and strongest available source.
- 01
Send the correction
Email hello@blancc.co.uk with the page URL, exact passage, proposed correction and supporting source. Do not include passwords, confidential client material or sensitive personal information.
- 02
Check the underlying claim
The disputed wording should be compared with its cited material, the current implementation where relevant, and any stronger primary source. Disagreement with a recommendation is considered separately from a factual error.
- 03
Correct in proportion
Minor typographic fixes may be silent. A decision-relevant factual correction should update the article, its meaningful revision date and a dated note explaining the material change.
- 04
Preserve uncertainty
If available evidence cannot resolve a dispute, the article should state the uncertainty or remove the unsupported claim rather than manufacture certainty.
No automatic receipt confirmation or response deadline.
The current website opens an email draft but cannot prove that a message was sent or received. Delivery to this mailbox has not yet been independently verified. If email fails, use the contact page or the published WhatsApp route. A monitored corrections inbox and response SLA should not be claimed until they are tested.
07 / LIMITS
Information cannot promise an outcome.
Blancc’s guides are general information for planning and discussion, not a guarantee or substitute for advice tailored to a specific situation.
- No ranking or growth guarantee.SEO implementation cannot guarantee crawling, indexing, search position, AI citation, traffic, enquiries, conversion, revenue or social-media growth.
- No delivery forecast from a guide.Cost bands, timelines, checklists, scores and package examples are directional until requirements, dependencies, evidence and commercial terms are reviewed.
- No professional-advice substitution.Legal, regulatory, financial, tax, employment, medical, security and compliance questions require appropriately qualified advice where the decision demands it.
- External systems change.Laws, official guidance, platform features, prices and policies can change after review. Check the linked current source before relying on a time-sensitive statement.
- Context changes recommendations.Budget, evidence, audience, risk, team capability, data sensitivity and operational constraints can make a different approach more suitable.
08 / REFERENCE STANDARD
Current search-quality guidance.
These official Google documents inform the search-facing parts of this policy. They do not replace the source hierarchy for each article’s subject matter.
- Google Search: Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content
- Google Search: AI features and your website
- Google Search: Article structured data
Policy record. Published and last substantively updated on 16 August 2026. This first version formalises source priority, content labels, date discipline, software-assistance boundaries, correction handling and limitations for the Blancc insight system.