Editorial policy
Who writes these pages
Everything on this site is written and maintained by Radif Partners, which also runs the deployment work described in the for companies section. There is no separate editorial team, and pretending otherwise would be a fiction that this page exists to avoid.
That arrangement creates an obvious conflict: we write about a field we sell services in. The rest of this page is about what we do to keep that conflict from quietly shaping what you read, and what you can check for yourself.
What we do not accept
No paid placements, no sponsored articles, no affiliate links, and no guest posts. Nothing on this site has been paid for by anyone and nothing links out in exchange for money.
No vendor partnerships and no reseller commission. We are not a partner of any model provider, cloud platform or software vendor, and we receive nothing for recommending one over another. This matters practically rather than symbolically: advice about which tool to use is close to worthless from someone paid differently depending on the answer.
No link exchanges. If a page here links out, it is because the source is worth reading.
How commercial and editorial work are kept apart
The commercial pages are grouped under one section and are recognisable as commercial. The editorial pages about the role, the comparisons and the practice carry a single call to action at most, and none of them recommends our services as the answer to the question they are about.
The test we apply is whether a page would say the same thing if we sold nothing. The comparison pages, for instance, repeatedly say that a company with a strong internal team should build things itself, which is directly against our commercial interest and is what the evidence supports.
What we refuse to publish
Invented specifics. No fabricated statistic, client, testimonial, logo, certification or job posting, ever, including as an illustration. A composite example is labelled as a composite, which is why the week described in a day in the life says so in its opening lines.
Numbers we cannot defend. Most visibly, salary figures. A salary page for this role would out-earn every other page here, and the public data is not good enough to publish under our name. The reasoning is set out in full on the methodology page.
Pages that exist only to rank. No thin variations on a page we already have, no city-by-city duplicates with a place name substituted, and no page generated to occupy a keyword we are not in a position to say anything useful about.
Corrections
When something here is wrong, we change it and say so on the page: what was wrong, and when it was fixed. Silent editing is easier and it leaves a reader with no way to know whether what they read last month is what is there now.
If you find an error, write to contact@fdeinsider.com. A correction with a source attached will be acted on quickly, and we would rather hear it from you than leave it standing.
Dates and review
Every indexable page shows when it was last reviewed, at the top and in the footer. The date reflects a real review rather than the last time the site was rebuilt, which means it can look old. That is deliberate: a date that refreshes on every build tells you nothing, and a date that has not moved in a year tells you something worth knowing.
Use of AI in producing this site
Worth being direct about, on a site about deploying AI. Drafting assistance is used in producing these pages. Every factual claim is checked against a source that is listed on the sources page with the date it was read, and nothing is published that has not been read and stood behind by a person.
The practical commitment is the one that can be checked: if a statement here is not supported by a listed source, it should not be here, and telling us so is the fastest way to have it removed.
