The short answer
Owners get a short list with intended user, price-check date, data touched, setup effort, exit path, and a low-risk way to test.
The decision standard is simple: preserve the source, state the limits, and make the next human check obvious. A useful article should reduce uncertainty without pretending that every unknown has been resolved.
What to examine
This recurring review filters launches through a small-business question: does the feature solve a repeated job at a reasonable total cost with acceptable data and review controls?
Start with scope. Identify the product, account, audience, jurisdiction, data, and decision involved. Then separate what was directly observed from what a vendor, researcher, regulator, or commentator says. Record dates because AI products, access rules, and prices change quickly.
Listing is not endorsement. Prices, limits, and terms change, and affiliate relationships must be disclosed beside any recommendation.
A practical way to do it
- Verify the current product page and terms.
- Describe one specific workflow and its human checkpoint.
- State pricing context, limitations, and commercial relationship.
Keep the worksheet or test record with the draft. If another editor cannot reproduce the check from the saved evidence, the article is not ready.
Editorial guardrail
Do not fill a missing fact with a plausible sentence. Mark it as unknown, find a stronger source, narrow the claim, or remove it. Commentary belongs in a clearly labeled paragraph after the reported facts, not inside them.
Primary-source reading list
These are starting points, not automatic support for every sentence. The publishing editor must open each cited page and confirm the claim it supports on the day of review.
Bottom line
Owners get a short list with intended user, price-check date, data touched, setup effort, exit path, and a low-risk way to test.