Editorial Standards
Editorial Standards
Last updated: October 16, 2026
Engineering My Best Life, LLC publishes calculations, comparisons, decisions, results, and changing information from my own work on this website and through The Engineering Report on Substack. My standard is to get the important facts right, make the evidence understandable, disclose context that changes how a result should be interpreted, and preserve the record when the answer changes.
The standard: Define the question before the outcome, use evidence that fits the claim, publish negative or inconclusive results on the same terms as wins, and correct material mistakes visibly.
Accuracy and Evidence Standard
I check material claims at a level appropriate to their importance. For consequential numbers, decisions, or conclusions, that may include source documents, primary or authoritative sources, dates, assumptions, calculation checks, and a clear distinction between measured results, estimates, forecasts, and personal judgment.
Not every page will remain current forever. When timing matters to the meaning of a claim, I make the relevant date, measurement period, or other time context visible.
How I date a result. Different results rest on different kinds of evidence, so the label changes with the evidence:
Result year — a closed annual figure. The number will not change.
Evidence through [date] — the decision is made, and the number continues to update as new data arrives.
Measurement period [range] — measured across a defined window and calculated on a stated date.
Prices captured [date] — a comparison against prices recorded on one day. Prices change; the comparison does not.
Evidence snapshot [date] — an observation as of a date, not a measurement.
Benchmark basis [date] — the published third-party valuation that applied when I made the decision.
Evidence Before Outcome
When I test a question, I set the evidence bar before the result is known whenever practical. That includes what would count as a useful answer, what would make the result inconclusive, and which comparison is relevant.
Negative, mixed, or inconclusive results are eligible for publication on the same terms as wins. I do not change the standard because a particular outcome makes a better story.
Sources, Data and Calculations
When a conclusion depends on a calculation, comparison, spreadsheet, model, bill, statement, rate, price, or other source data, I preserve enough context to understand what was measured, over what period, and under what assumptions. Source data can itself be incomplete or incorrect, and calculations can contain mistakes. If either materially affects the conclusion, I correct it.
Personal results—such as savings, interest earned, credits recovered, points value, or time saved—describe the specific facts of the analysis shown. They are not promises that another person will get the same result.
When I include published research or general guidance as background — nutrition, training, health, or any other field — I name the source. Research context explains why I tried something. It is not the evidence for my result. My result is what I observed in my own use, and I keep the two clearly separate.
Changing Information Is Not Automatically an Error
Prices, rates, product features, credit-card benefits, points programs, travel rules, affiliate offers, laws, tax rules, investment information, and third-party terms can change after publication. A statement that was accurate when published does not become an error merely because the world changed.
Later information may lead me to publish an update, conduct a new analysis, or change a decision. That is different from correcting something that was wrong when published.
Where I give an anticipated update date, it is an outer bound rather than a target. I would rather be early than late.
Future travel dates
I do not publish dates for upcoming personal trips. I add trip dates after I return when they are useful to the story.
Corrections and Updates
If a factual, calculation, sourcing, attribution, or explanatory error could materially change a reader’s understanding, conclusion, or decision, I correct it after verification. When transparency helps the reader understand what changed, I include a dated correction or update note with the affected content.
I may correct typos, grammar, formatting, broken links, or other fixes that do not materially change meaning without a separate notice.
Reasonable disagreement is not automatically an error. A correction is warranted when the underlying facts, calculation, attribution, or presentation is materially wrong or misleading—not merely because another person would make a different choice.
Historical Integrity
I do not silently rewrite a prior number, conclusion, or decision so the historical record looks better in hindsight. When later evidence changes the answer, the change itself becomes part of the record.
Independence, Affiliate Relationships and Industry Rates
Some links are affiliate or referral links. When a visitor takes a qualifying action through one, Engineering My Best Life, LLC will receive compensation. Compensation does not change my accuracy standard or whether I report an evaluation as positive, negative, mixed, or immaterial.
When an affiliate relationship is relevant to how a reader may interpret content, I disclose it. If a price I publish was not available to the general public, I say so.
Financial, Health, Tax and Legal Scope
Financial content on Engineering My Best Life documents my own decisions, research, systems, calculations, and results. It is not financial, investment, tax, or legal advice and may not be appropriate for another person’s circumstances.
Health content works the same way. When I write about supplements, training, recovery, routines, or anything else affecting my own health, I am documenting what I chose, what I observed, and why. It is not medical advice. I have a specific medical situation and my own care team, and what fits my body may be wrong for yours. Talk to your own clinician before changing anything about your health.
Report an Error
If you believe something on this site or in a Substack article or Note is inaccurate, materially incomplete, misleading, outdated in a way that matters, or incorrectly attributed, email hello@engineeringmybestlife.com. Please include the page or URL, the statement at issue, and—if available—the source or information you believe supports a correction.
I will evaluate material correction requests against the same evidence standard used for publication. Not every requested change will be accepted.
Related Policies
These standards cover the website and The Engineering Report on Substack. They work alongside the site’s Privacy Policy, Substack’s own policies, and content-specific disclosures.
Contact
Engineering My Best Life, LLC