Editorial standards

How we research and review our articles

Our byline is simple. The work behind it is specific. This page explains what the Church Media Kit team knows, how we check claims, and where our authority stops.

Who the byline represents

We build and operate Church Media Kit. That gives us direct access to the product's current workflows, source code, tests, design output, and operating limits. We use that access when an article describes the product.

"Church Media Kit team" is an organizational byline. The byline does not represent a fictional person, minister, customer, or independent newsroom.

How we use sources

We start with the source that owns the fact. Platform policies come from the platform. Accessibility rules come from the relevant standards body. Product claims come from current Church Media Kit behavior and approved records.

  1. Primary documentation, standards, laws, original datasets, and research.
  2. Current product evidence such as tested workflows, screens, and output.
  3. Practitioner accounts used to understand problems and language, not to prove prevalence.
  4. Competitor pages used to find gaps and verify their own current claims, not as neutral authority.

Each article gets its own dated research record. We link evidence beside the claim it supports and separate a source's statement from our inference.

How AI assists the work

AI can help us organize research, test an outline, and prepare a draft. It is not a source and it cannot approve its own claims. A person chooses the evidence, checks every material statement, edits the article, and decides whether the work is ready to publish.

We do not ask AI to invent experience, quotations, credentials, customers, product behavior, or results. If a worked example is fictional, the article labels it.

What human review covers

A person reviews every article before publication. Product-led articles receive a current product-evidence check. Ministry communication and source-integrity claims need a qualified subject review. Commercial, legal, privacy, price, retention, comparison, testimonial, and outcome claims require the approved claim record and any specialist review that record names.

The product owner makes the final publication, correction, withdrawal, and reviewer assignment decisions. A deadline never replaces the required evidence.

Corrections and updates

Send a suspected factual or product error to support@churchmediakit.com. Include the article URL and the claim that needs review. We correct material errors in the article, record a new modification date after a substantive change, and withdraw a page when it can no longer meet this standard.

Limits on our authority

We write about the product we operate and the church communication work our evidence can support. We do not claim credentials, church roles, customers, or years of experience that we cannot verify. We do not turn internal writing perspectives into public biographies or testimonials.

Our articles do not replace pastoral, theological, legal, accessibility, privacy, or platform-specific professional judgment. We state important limits and non-fit cases instead of enlarging a promise to make the product sound stronger.