How the explanations are built.
The editorial approach to evidence and clarity.
Start with a useful question
Each explanation should answer a question and make the most important limits clear. Evidence should not be shaped to fit a breakthrough story.
Use sources that fit the claim
Study reports help explain findings. Regulator records describe decisions about products. Other trusted sources help explain the basics. We should identify sponsor statements, preprints, abstracts and later analyses. A link alone does not mean the full paper was read.
Explain what remains uncertain
Keep study results separate from theories about how a treatment works. Explain important harms and limits alongside the claims they qualify, including who was studied.
Check diagrams as well as words
Diagrams are intended to make ideas visible, but arrows, labels and apparent cause-and-effect relationships are also claims that need review. Schematics should identify simplifications; illustrative numbers should be labelled, and generated artwork should not be presented as scans, microscopy or measurements.
Show the evidence
Claims should be supported by sources, with their limits made clear.
Make changes traceable
A significant correction should explain what changed and why. Related pages should be checked when evidence changes. A new headline alone should not automatically change a medical conclusion.