How we publish.
Our editorial standards are built around accuracy, originality, transparency and accountability.
1. Originality
Ninth Post aims to publish original reporting, explanation and analysis. We do not treat copying or lightly rewriting material from another publication as a substitute for original editorial value. When we reference outside work, we aim to add meaningful context and make the nature of the reference clear.
2. Sources and verification
We seek to verify important claims using reliable sources, with preference for primary material such as official documents, research papers, regulatory publications, company announcements and direct statements when appropriate.
Secondary sources can provide useful context, but they should not automatically be treated as proof of a claim. When evidence is incomplete or a development is still evolving, the article should make that uncertainty clear.
3. Reporting versus analysis
News reporting, explanation and opinion are not the same thing. We aim to distinguish factual claims from interpretation, forecasts and editorial judgment so readers can understand what is established and what is our analysis.
4. Corrections
If we identify a material factual error, we will review the evidence and correct the article when appropriate. Corrections may include changes to the article text, headline, metadata or other information when necessary for accuracy.
Readers can report possible errors through our Contact page.
5. Authors and attribution
Ninth Post is founded and written by Satya Prasad. He is responsible for reviewing published claims, sources, analysis, dates, updates and corrections. The byline links to the founder and author profile. We do not present automated output as independent reporting without human editorial review.
6. Use of AI in our workflow
AI tools may be used for research assistance, organization, drafting support, editing or other production tasks. Their use does not replace editorial responsibility. Published claims must be reviewed by a human editor, and AI-generated material should not be treated as automatically accurate.
7. Conflicts and commercial interests
We aim to avoid conflicts that could compromise editorial judgment. Commercial relationships, advertising or partnerships should not determine the conclusions of editorial coverage. Where a disclosure is necessary to understand a story or recommendation, we aim to provide it clearly.
8. Sponsored and promotional material
Editorial content and paid promotional content should be distinguishable. Commercial communication should not be presented as independent editorial reporting.
9. Reader trust
Our goal is not to predict the future with certainty. It is to help readers understand technology with useful context, honest uncertainty and clear explanations.
10. Evidence, attribution and limits
For material claims, we aim to link to the underlying primary source where available, such as an official document, research paper, regulator publication, technical documentation or direct company statement. A source link is not an endorsement and does not automatically validate every interpretation in an article. We aim to describe what the evidence actually establishes, distinguish measured results from vendor claims and forecasts, and avoid implying that a single study settles a broader question.
When a claim cannot be independently confirmed, we aim to attribute it clearly and explain the limitation. Illustrative examples should be identified as hypothetical rather than presented as events that occurred. We do not fabricate quotes, interviews, statistics, product tests, credentials or first-hand experience.
11. Article updates and dates
Publication dates should represent when an article first appeared. Updated dates should be changed when a material edit adds information, corrects an error or meaningfully improves the article. Minor formatting changes alone should not be used to make a story appear fresh. When an update materially changes a reader's understanding, we aim to explain the change in the article.
12. Responsible use of AI
AI systems can assist with research organization, drafting and editing, but can also produce inaccurate summaries, fabricated citations or plausible-sounding claims. Editors are responsible for checking sources directly and confirming that linked material supports the statement being made. We do not publish unreviewed automated output as if it were verified journalism. Where the use of synthetic media or AI assistance materially affects how readers should interpret content, we aim to provide an appropriate disclosure.
13. Reader feedback and corrections
Readers can contact us with evidence, corrections or requests for clarification through the Contact page. We review specific claims and supporting material, correct confirmed material errors when appropriate, and avoid silently changing dates merely to suggest recency. We may update this policy as our editorial process evolves.