Editorial Policy

Last updated April 26, 2026

Editorial workflow

Every published article on whatsthebestcalorietracker.app passes through a three-stage review workflow:

1. Writer. Drafts the article based on hands-on test data. Author byline.
2. Data editor (Aldridge-Yamaguchi). Gates every accuracy number. No accuracy claim ships without a documented protocol, sample size, and confidence interval. If the writer is also Hassan, the gating reviewer is Carmichael-Sato.
3. Editor-in-chief (Carmichael-Sato). Final-pass review. Voice consistency, factual accuracy, structure. If Edith is the writer, the gating reviewer is Pelletier-Wamala.

Two named contributors are credited on every keystone article (author + reviewer). Every published article carries a tested-on-version disclosure where applicable.

Voice and substance

• Hands-on first. We log meals in the apps. We don't summarize the literature without testing.
• Tech-tester voice. Pragmatic, slightly skeptical, hardware-context. We use phrases like "we put X through Y test" because that's what we did.
• Spec tables with mono numerics. Hardware-comparison aesthetic. Every published number is auditable.
• Cross-reference to lab data. Where the DAI 2026 Six-App Validation Study covers an app we test, we cross-reference and flag divergences.

Conflict of interest

• No affiliate fees. See no-affiliate disclosure.
• No paid relationships. No contributor holds a paid consulting, advisory, or coaching relationship with any reviewed app maker.
• Complimentary premium accounts. Accepted for sustained testing on the public press list terms. Disclosed in individual articles that depend on the comp account.
• Per-contributor COI. Every contributor's COI statement is published on their author page.

Corrections process

Found an error? Email editor@whatsthebestcalorietracker.app. Acknowledgment within 72 hours. Confirmed corrections published within an additional 72 hours, with a dated changelog entry. For substantive errors that change a published recommendation, we issue a correction notice at the top of the affected article.

AI use

We do not use AI to generate primary research, accuracy claims, or test data. AI tools are used for spell-check, light copyediting, and draft outline organization. Every accuracy claim, every spec-table cell, every test result is human-authored. The hands-on test work — logging meals, running benchmarks, testing Watch hand-off — is human-only.

Re-tests

We re-test on a fixed cadence (April / October) plus ad-hoc on major app updates. Every re-test is logged in the changelog. If our published recommendation moves, the changelog will say so.