Whybranch aims to answer a clear question accurately, in language a general reader can use. These standards apply to original articles, revisions, and any work assisted by automated tools.
Start with the question
An article should give the central answer early, then explain the reasoning and the exceptions that matter. Length, headings, examples, and tables should earn their place. An article does not need a fixed word count, a stock introduction, or a question-and-answer section when those add nothing.
Use evidence readers can check
Research should begin with the most direct useful evidence: original research, official documentation, reliable historical records, or the organization responsible for a rule or service. Other reporting can provide context, but repeated claims across websites are not a substitute for an original source.
Source links should support the claims beside them. Figures, quotations, dates, and disputed or changeable claims need particular care. A source should not be cited for a claim it does not actually establish. Where useful evidence is limited or conflicting, the article should say so.
Make the scope clear
Prices, product features, rules, and public guidance can change. Articles should identify the relevant date or version when that affects the answer. Differences between the United States, the United Kingdom, and other regions should be stated rather than quietly combined.
A fact, an interpretation, and a practical suggestion are different things. The writing should make that difference clear. Medical, legal, financial, and safety-related subjects require stronger checks; uncertain claims should be held back rather than presented with false confidence.
Be honest about experience and tools
Research, drafting, organization, and checking may be assisted by AI tools. AI output is not evidence, and a second AI response is not an independent fact check. Claims still need to be checked against appropriate sources before publication.
The operator remains responsible for what appears on Whybranch. AI assistance must not be used to invent quotations, sources, people, credentials, product tests, or personal experiences. Images and examples must not be presented as documentary evidence when they are illustrative.
Keep the writing useful
Plain language is preferred to inflated claims, forced informality, and unnecessary jargon. Concrete examples are useful when they explain something; repetition and filler are not. Uncertainty should be described precisely rather than hidden behind vague qualifiers.
Separate commercial interests from explanations
If an article contains an affiliate link, sponsorship, or another material commercial relationship, that relationship must be disclosed clearly where readers can see it. Paid placement must not be presented as independent evidence.
Update and correct
A correction that changes an article’s meaning, central conclusion, or an important fact should be identified on the article with a dated note explaining the change. Spelling, formatting, and other minor edits do not usually need a separate correction notice.
Readers can report a concern using the corrections process. These standards will be revised as the site develops.