Last updated: 20 September 2026
We publish scores, prices and verdicts that people spend money on. So the interesting question isn't whether we get things wrong — everyone does. It's what happens next.
This page says what happens next. The Methodology page explains how a score is reached. This one explains how a claim is checked, how a mistake is fixed, and how you tell us about one.
Who is accountable
One editor, Adam. Every review, roundup, comparison and news post carries his byline.
There is no agency behind this masthead and no anonymous editorial team. AI tools assist with research and drafting. Every verdict, every score and every final edit is human, and the byline is the accountability.
How we verify
Our sourcing rules live in a standing internal document, the Verification Standard, and they are not negotiable piece by piece. The short version:
- Every price, plan name, model name, launch date, availability claim and data-residency statement comes from a primary source. That means the vendor's own pricing page, blog, help centre, documentation or press release.
- Independent media is for context and cross-checks, never for verification of a price or a feature. We use established Australian and global outlets for that.
- Templated SEO sites and affiliate aggregators are not sources, however well they rank.
- We archive what we saw. Primary sources are captured to the Wayback Machine on the day of the review. That leaves a dated record of what the vendor's page said when we wrote about it.
- If we can't anchor a claim, we cut it. A gap stated plainly beats a number that reads well.
Whether a review was trialled hands-on or desk-researched changes what we can honestly claim. The Methodology page explains how to tell the two apart.
Correction or update — they are different things
A lot of publications blur these two. We don't, because they mean different things to you.
An update is the world changing. A vendor raises a price, renames a plan, ships a feature, pulls out of Australia. Nothing we published was wrong at the time. We add the new fact, date it, and keep the old one visible.
A correction is us being wrong. A figure we misread, a plan we misnamed, a claim we didn't verify properly, a score built on a mistaken fact. We say so, on the piece, with the date.
The test is simple: if a reader would have been misled by what we published on the day we published it, it is a correction.
How a correction appears
Corrections are dated and visible on the affected piece. They are never silent edits.
- A correction note sits on the page itself — at the top of the piece, or against the claim it fixes. It says what was wrong and what it now says.
- The correction carries the date it was made.
- If the error changed a score, a star band or a Top Pick, we say what the score was before and what it is now.
- We don't delete the piece and republish it clean. The record is the point.
If an error is caught before a piece is live, it is fixed before publication and there is nothing to correct. We only put a correction on a page that a reader could have read.
How an update appears
Where a review has been updated since it was written, it carries a dated Update history at the foot of the piece. Each entry is one bullet: the date, what changed, and the vendor source it came from.
Two rules govern it, and they exist because a maintained archive is worth more than a tidy one:
- A price change never erases the old price. When a price, plan, tier or billing currency moves, the bullet states the old figure and the new one. The pricing table shows what the tool costs today; the bullet keeps what it cost before.
- The first-reviewed date never moves. It records when we first looked at the tool. A later update never rewrites it.
The old-figure rule applies to changes from September 2026 onwards. Updates made before that are dated and described, but not all of them record the previous price.
What the "Verified" date means
Every review shows a "Verified" date on its score rail, and every directory tile shows one too.
That date means one thing: on that day, we re-checked the review's claims against the vendor's own pages. It is not the day the file was last touched.
Housekeeping doesn't move it. Adding a staleness flag, fixing a typo or restating a pricing basis leaves the date where it was, because nothing was re-verified. A review tidied in September but last checked in March shows March.
We enforce that in the software that builds the page, not by good intentions. A date that flatters us is worse than an old one.
The six-month staleness rule
AI pricing and plans move fast enough that an unchecked review goes off quietly.
So every review carries a last-reviewed date. Once a review passes six months without re-verification, it gets a staleness flag until someone checks it against the vendor's current pages. The flag stays until the check happens, not until the file is edited.
We would rather tell you a review is overdue than let you assume it isn't.
Reporting an error — readers
If something on this site is wrong, tell us. You don't need to be polite about it.
Email adam@theaidirectory.com.au with CORRECTION in the subject line, and include:
- the URL of the page
- the exact claim you think is wrong
- what you believe is correct, and a link if you have one
We aim to acknowledge within two business days. If you're right, we fix it, date it, and credit you on the page if you'd like to be credited. If we can't verify your version at primary source, we'll tell you that too, and say why.
Reporting an error — vendors
Vendors get the same channel and the same standard as everyone else. Use CORRECTION in the subject line and point us at your own page.
A few things worth being direct about:
- We correct facts, not verdicts. If our price, plan name or feature claim is wrong, show us your page and we'll fix it. Disagreeing with a score is not an error report.
- We don't send drafts for approval. No vendor sees a review before it goes live — not for comment, not for fact-checking.
- We don't remove reviews on request. A published piece stays published. If it's wrong, it gets corrected in public.
- A commercial relationship changes nothing here. We hold no active affiliate relationships, and if that ever changes, it still won't buy a correction, a score or a removal.
If you want to brief us on a product, that's welcome and separate — see Contact.
Independence
Nobody pays for a review, a score, a Top Pick or an Editor's Choice. The Advertising and Sponsorship Policy states that in full, and the Affiliate Disclosure covers links.
If we ever accept sponsored content, it is labelled SPONSORED in the headline and kept out of scoring. It is excluded from every roundup and "best of" recommendation.
If you're not satisfied
If you've reported an error and you don't think we've handled it properly, our Complaints Handling page sets out what to do next.
Last reviewed: 20 September 2026. This page is reviewed quarterly, and whenever a correction reveals a gap in it. Next review due: 20 December 2026.
Update history
- 20 Sep 2026 — First version. Consolidates the corrections practice previously described across the Contact, Methodology and About pages, and states the Update-history, "Verified" date and six-month staleness rules in one place.