Editorial, review and corrections policy

This policy applies to product pages, technical documentation, educational articles, comparison content, glossary entries, newsroom items and machine-readable summaries published on the RTX5 website. Its purpose is to make the origin, evidence, limitations and maintenance of that information understandable to readers and to the systems that retrieve it.

Product documentation can explain how RTX5 is intended to work, but the live experience may also depend on a broker, account type, integration, operating system, release version, market-data entitlement or jurisdiction. Content should identify those dependencies rather than presenting every feature as universally available.

For RTX5 product facts, the preferred evidence is a current product record, release note, tested interface, technical specification or written confirmation from the responsible product owner. For external facts, the preferred source is the relevant regulator, standards body, exchange, government publication, audited filing or original research provider.

Secondary reporting can provide context, but it should not override a current primary source. Anonymous claims, unattributed statistics and copied summaries are not sufficient support for a material statement. A source must actually substantiate the nearby claim; a generic bibliography does not meet that standard.

Trading and investing topics can influence decisions involving real money. Educational pages must not promise returns, imply that software removes risk or present a general example as an instruction tailored to an individual. Leverage, derivatives, margin, automated strategies and broker selection require especially clear risk and jurisdiction notes.

When an article discusses regulated status, client-money protection, leverage limits, fees or product eligibility, those facts should be dated and linked to an authoritative source. Readers should verify a firm directly in the register of the regulator that applies to their location before funding an account.

Every substantive article should identify its author or responsible editorial team. A named author profile must state only credentials and experience that can be verified. Where legal, compliance, tax or personalised financial expertise is required, the page should be reviewed by an appropriately qualified person or limited to neutral product documentation.

The shared RTX5 Editorial Team byline identifies an organizational publishing function, not an individual adviser. It must not be used to imply a professional licence that the team does not hold.

A comparison should disclose what was compared, product versions, test date, environment, criteria, weighting, limitations and who performed the work. A ranking or 'best' claim requires a repeatable method and a representative candidate set. If those conditions are not met, the content should be a selection guide rather than a league table.

Affiliate fees, partnerships, sponsored access and other material commercial relationships must be disclosed near the relevant recommendation. Commercial participation must not buy a score, conceal a limitation or determine the editorial conclusion.

Automation and generative tools may assist with outlining, transcription, formatting, language cleanup or research organization. They are not treated as a source. A human owner remains responsible for checking facts, citations, examples, product availability, originality and risk disclosures before publication. AI assistance is not presented as a person, qualified expert or proof that human specialist review occurred.

Publishing a large number of pages is not an editorial objective. A page should exist only when it addresses a distinct user need and adds useful information beyond changing a keyword, country name or competitor name.

Material updates should change the visible modified date and, where useful, describe what changed. Cosmetic edits do not justify resetting a freshness date. Time-sensitive facts—such as releases, availability, prices, regulations and store links—should have an owner and review interval.

A substantiated error should be corrected promptly. If a page cannot be made reliable, it may be qualified, redirected, removed from search indexing or withdrawn. Requests should include the page URL, disputed statement, reason and supporting evidence. Corrections do not guarantee removal of accurate public-interest information.