Trust and provenance

We do not have a verified badge

A single badge would imply we had checked everything, and we have not. Instead each case carries up to four separate labels, each with a stated scope. A case can be a credible firsthand account from an anonymous creator; a named creator can make claims we have not reviewed. Both appear on the page.

What each label means

✓Identity checked
We have checked the creator's identity through an appropriate process. This does not establish that any claim in the case is true. A creator may be identity-checked and still publish anonymously — in that case we hold the identity and the public page does not show it.
✓Firsthand account
The creator has declared direct involvement in the decision and answered editorial questions about their role and authority. Where the creator executed a decision but did not make it, the label says so on the case page, because that distinction changes how the account should be read.
✓Evidence reviewed
An editor has examined supporting material, subject to confidentiality restrictions. Every case states exactly what was reviewed and what was not. “Evidence reviewed” never means we saw everything.
✓Outcome followed up
The creator has provided an outcome update after a stated interval. Each case discloses whether that update was independently corroborated. Most are not.

Five editorial checks

Every submission passes through all five before publication.

  • Authenticity — is the account plausibly firsthand, and are material claims adequately supported?
  • Usefulness — does it explain the actual alternatives and trade-offs, or only narrate what happened?
  • Context — does it distinguish facts, assumptions and hindsight? This is where most submissions need work.
  • Safety and confidentiality — does it disclose personal information, protected company information, or anything the creator lacks permission to share?
  • Integrity — are financial interests, sponsorships and other relevant conflicts disclosed on the case page?

Medical, legal and financial cases carry additional safeguards and appropriate expert review. Everything published here is educational case material. None of it is individualised professional advice, and no case should be treated as a recommendation for your situation.

Corrections, appeals and takedowns

  • Anyone can request a correction on any case. Requests are logged with a timestamp and answered.
  • A creator whose submission is rejected can appeal once, to an editor who was not involved in the original decision.
  • A named third party who believes a case discloses information the creator had no right to share can request a takedown. Cases are removed from public view while such a request is assessed.
  • Substantiated complaints and unresolved verification issues are tracked as a platform quality metric, not treated as support tickets.

Creator compensation

Two things are kept separate. Content licensing is the permission a creator grants the platform to publish and monetise a case, on non-exclusive terms, with copyright retained. Revenue sharing is a disclosed share of eligible revenue, allocated from a pool according to a published rule.

  • We do not pay by page view. Paying per view rewards clickbait, overproduction and thin cases, which is the opposite of what the library needs.
  • The allocation formula is published and visible before a creator agrees to anything.
  • We do not promise lifetime passive income. The terms state what happens when a case is withdrawn, a subscription is refunded, a creator leaves, or the platform ceases operations.