Aha editorial policy
These standards explain how Aha prepares public editorial content, identifies responsibility, uses evidence, and communicates the role of automation and human review.
We aim to support factual claims with relevant, traceable sources. Sources are assessed for their relationship to the topic, recency, and authority, and are presented with the article when they materially support its conclusions.
Published content identifies its responsible author using an approved profile. An optional reviewer may also be selected when the task is created. These profiles are versioned and frozen for that publication.
Our content workflow uses structured planning and automated checks for coverage, consistency, evidence, and publication readiness. An automated check is not represented as a human review.
A named reviewer appears only when that person was explicitly selected for the task. The label identifies public editorial responsibility; it does not claim a separate manual approval or review receipt. No reviewer is shown when none was selected.
Images and other media must come from an approved, versioned asset record with a stable public URL, attribution details when applicable, and suitability for the article. We do not silently substitute placeholder media at publication time.
We may update content when facts, products, or guidance change. Material publication revisions are preserved as distinct versions, and corrections are evaluated against the same evidence and quality expectations as the original article.