Editorial & evidence standards
An institute that writes about AI governance should publish its own. These are the rules every page, book and platform feature is held to — not aspirations; the working system, with its enforcement named.
1. Sourced, or downgraded in the sentence
Every quantitative claim carries a named, dated source. Where a claim cannot be sourced, the sentence itself says so — "unverified", "inference", "the record stops here". A reader should never have to guess which kind of sentence they are reading.
2. What is unpublished stays unpublished
Where a standard, fee schedule or survey process is not freely public — as remains true of parts of the Responsible Use of AI in Healthcare (RUAIH) certification, whose manual is obtained through the certifier rather than published openly — our pages say exactly that, and label everything built on top as inference. We treat honesty about the gaps as the product, not a disclaimer on it.
3. Every page carries its provenance
Reference pages carry a last-reviewed date, the reviewing author, and where useful a "how this was built" note describing sources and method. Pages past their review interval are re-verified against their sources before the date moves — the date is a promise, not a decoration.
4. Composites are labelled composites
Case material drawn from multiple engagements is labelled composite wherever it appears. No invented clients, no invented testimonials, no implied adoption numbers. Reader reviews shown on this site are excerpts from public retail listings, attributed, reproduced without editing beyond truncation.
5. Independence, in writing
No vendor sponsorship, no paid placements, no affiliate commissions, no vendor equity, no referral fees. Vendor assessments score against a published method; where the Institute has a product of its own in a category, the conflict is disclosed on the page.
6. Automated gates, human sign-off
An automated pre-flight system checks every book manuscript for placeholders, structural defects, figure quality and print specification; the site's build blocks publication on schema violations, broken commercial links, or missing provenance fields. A failing gate stops a release. Passing gates does not publish anything — a human decision does.
7. Corrections
Errors are corrected in the next printing or the next deploy, and material corrections are noted on the page. Write to hello@healthcareaiops.com. Corrections from working operators are read first and answered personally.
Open standards we publish
The Institute maintains open, CC BY 4.0 standards anyone may adopt. The umbrella architecture is Closed-Loop Defensibility (CLD-SPEC-v1.0): binding every AI anomaly to an automated response and an accountable, timestamped human decision, preserved as evidence. Its component standards: the Model Scope of Practice (the credentialing charter), the Model Governance Record (the vendor-neutral file format for a system's governed history), Governance Decision Latency (the metric for how fast a human owns a suspension), and the Model Governance Rider (the contract language that requires all of it).