Fact-Checking and Corrections

We verify that a statement is a fair description of how something works, that it is not a provider-specific commercial claim in disguise, and that it does not imply a number, a rating or an endorsement.

That is a narrower promise than "everything on this page has been confirmed with the company", and it is deliberately narrower. We have no privileged access to any provider, so a claim about a provider’s current terms could not be verified by us at all. Restricting the content to checkable classes of statement is what makes the checking meaningful.

Checking happens against the same claim taxonomy used while drafting, described on the methodology page. Reviewing a draft is largely the work of walking each sentence back to its category and asking whether it earns its place there.

Definitional

What a term means and how it differs from adjacent terms — for example the boundary between a charge structure and a revolving credit structure.

Structural

How programs are organised: whose name the card is issued in, who carries liability, who administers limits and access.

Mechanism

How a component behaves in operation — that a category rule is evaluated at authorisation, or that a receipt requirement blocks reconciliation rather than the payment.

Practice

Patterns common in card program administration and internal control, stated as patterns with the variation acknowledged.

These four categories cover almost everything a reader needs in order to read provider documentation confidently. They also share a useful property: they stay true for years, so a page written carefully does not silently decay.

Every page is walked through the same checklist before it goes live, and again after any substantive edit.

• Every factual sentence maps to an allowed statement category
• No figure appears except counts of things that exist on this site
• No claim is made about a specific provider’s terms, pricing or eligibility
• No rating, ranking, award, testimonial or review language appears
• No advice framing on tax, legal, accounting, credit or investment questions
• No transactional language, no forms, no credential or document requests
• Brand terms are used nominatively and read naturally in context
• Hedging is present where variation is real, and absent where it is not
• Internal links resolve to pages that exist and answer the adjacent question
• Title, description, headings and update date are accurate for the content

Reader reports are the most reliable correction mechanism we have. Send them by email to [email protected], or use the details on the contact page.

1. Send the page and the sentence

   Include the page URL and quote the sentence you are questioning, so there is no ambiguity about what is being disputed.

2. Say what is wrong with it

   Factually incorrect, misleading in context, outdated, or ambiguous enough to be read the wrong way — each leads to a different fix.

3. Point to a basis if you have one

   A public document or a description of standard practice helps, but a well-argued report with no citation is still worth sending.

A report is read, the disputed sentence is re-classified against the claim taxonomy, and one of four outcomes follows.

Reports are handled by the contributor responsible for the cluster, listed on the authors page, with the editorial team reviewing anything that affects a shared definition used across several pages.

Each page shows an Updated date near its heading. It records the last substantive change to the content — a corrected or clarified claim, a rewritten section, a new or removed explanation.

Moves the date

Corrections, clarifications, removed claims, new sections, changed definitions and reworked structure.

Does not move the date

Typographical fixes, link housekeeping, styling changes and other edits that leave the meaning intact.

What it is not

It is not a claim that provider terms were re-checked on that date, because we never publish provider terms in the first place.

If a page looks stale relative to something you know has changed in the wider payments landscape, that is worth reporting too. Ageing explanations are as much a defect as incorrect ones.