EDITORIAL STANDARDS

Useful first. Verifiable before publication.

PFA publishes reviews, guides, news, research and analysis for people making real decisions about prop firms. The job is not to fill a content calendar. The job is to answer the reader’s question with enough evidence, context and judgment to make the page worth using.

People-firstPrimary sourcesHuman fact-check

What we are trying to produce

A strong PFA article should leave the reader with a clearer decision than they had before opening it. That usually means explaining the rule or event, showing the scope, separating what the firm says from what PFA has independently verified, and connecting the answer to the relevant account, calculator, evidence page or comparison.

We do not treat word count as a quality target. A 700-word answer can be better than a 2,000-word article if it resolves the task without padding. Longer content earns its length by adding evidence, examples, exceptions, calculations or context that changes the decision.

We also avoid pretending to have experience we do not have. If PFA did not place the trade, contact support, receive the payout or run the test, the article must not imply that we did. Public reports can be described as reports. Firm claims can be described as firm claims. Independent testing must be real, documented and reproducible enough to support the statement.

The five publishing gates

These are the critical people-first gates used by PFA Editorial OS. A page should not be treated as ready simply because the prose looks polished.
1

1. Search intent satisfied

The page answers the task behind the query. A payout guide should explain payout eligibility and timing, not bury the answer under a generic prop firm introduction.

2

2. Original PFA contribution

The page adds something useful from PFA: an original comparison, calculation, verified change, evidence link, trader-impact explanation or clear synthesis.

3

3. Official or primary sources verified

Important facts are checked against the strongest available source, especially rules, terms, program conditions, official notices and regulator material where relevant.

4

4. Important claims supported

Material claims have evidence that actually supports the wording used. A source for one firm cannot establish an industry-wide trend.

5

5. Fact-check completed

Names, dates, percentages, account scope, country scope, links, quotes and material conclusions receive a final verification pass before publication.

Content-integrity checks

These checks deal with the types of error that can make a page sound convincing while still being unreliable.

Experience claims

First-hand or testing language must describe work PFA actually performed. Otherwise the wording stays observational or attributed.

Specific attribution

We name the firm, regulator, platform, dataset, public source or evidence record when attribution matters. u201cExperts sayu201d is not useful sourcing.

Opened citations

A link is not proof by itself. Editors must open the source and confirm it still supports the claim.

Claim-source alignment

A source can support only what it actually says. We do not use a narrow source to imply a broader rule, trend or consensus.

Consensus and frequency

Words such as u201cmost,u201d u201ccommonly,u201d u201cwidelyu201d and u201ctraders reportu201d need enough observations to justify the claim.

No prompt or placeholder leakage

Draft instructions, chatbot residue, unresolved placeholders and internal prompts are publication blockers.

How we use sources

For prop firm rules, the preferred source is the firm’s current Rules, Terms, Program Rules or equivalent official documentation. Product pages are useful for program configuration and pricing, but they do not always contain every rule. FAQs can fill a genuine gap, although they are not treated as a stronger source than explicit rules or terms when the two conflict.

Blogs, newsletters and social posts are useful for announcements and change intelligence. They can tell us that a new program launched or that a firm announced a policy update. The lasting rule record should still point to the authoritative rule source when one exists.

Complaints, payout reports and community discussions can reveal patterns worth investigating. They remain reports unless independently verified. A firm’s reply is stored and shown as a reply; it does not erase the original report. Where a verified firm representative replies on PFA, that response is labeled separately from a response published at the original source.

Human voice without invented personality

PFA should sound like an informed editor who has done the work, not like a template trying to sound authoritative. We prefer concrete nouns, direct verbs, real numbers when available and explanations tied to the trader’s decision.

PFA Editorial OS includes a Human Voice score that looks for repeated writing patterns, inflated vocabulary, mechanical transitions, vague authority, repetitive sentence shapes, canned introductions and other signs of low-value formulaic writing. It is a pattern-risk tool, not an AI detector. Style signals do not block publication on their own.

The practical standard is simple: remove filler, keep necessary nuance, vary the structure when the content calls for it, and do not manufacture anecdotes to make a page feel human. Specificity does more for credibility than forced casual language.

Editorial independence

Affiliate links

A referral relationship can affect how a link is tracked. It cannot change the review conclusion, ranking score, evidence status or whether a correction is accepted.

Advertising

Sponsored inventory must be distinguishable from editorial content. A paid placement does not become an editorial recommendation because it appears near one.

Firm access

Claimed firms and verified representatives may provide corrections, evidence and responses. Editors assess the material under the same sourcing rules applied to everyone else.

Negative information

A commercial relationship is not a reason to suppress a supported complaint pattern, rule change, outage, restriction or other material fact.

Editorial workflow

1

Define the reader task

State what the page must help the reader understand or decide.

2

Collect and scope the evidence

Identify the firm, program, account, market, country and date scope before drafting broad claims.

3

Write from the evidence

Lead with the answer. Add explanation where it changes interpretation, rather than padding around the keyword.

4

Run editorial QA

Use People-First and Human Voice checks, verify sources, check internal links and resolve blockers.

5

Fact-check and publish

A final human pass checks material claims, source fit and the practical conclusion.

6

Monitor for change

News, rules, payouts, complaints and PFA data changes can trigger an update when the old answer no longer represents the current evidence.

Updates, dates and material changes

Changing a punctuation mark is not a meaningful freshness update. We update the published or reviewed date when the page has been rechecked or materially improved. For firm-specific content, a rule change, payout-policy change, new program, closure, country restriction, major complaint development or corrected source can justify a substantive update.

PFA’s Content Dependency Graph and evidence-led workflows are intended to identify pages affected by underlying data changes. The long-term goal is to update the pages that depend on changed facts, not simply refresh dates across the site.

Editorial policy questions

Does PFA use AI to write content?

Automation can assist research, extraction, comparison, drafting and QA. Publication still follows PFA sourcing and editorial gates. Automation is not permission to invent testing, citations, consensus or personal experience.

Can a firm review its page before publication?

A firm can provide factual information or respond to specific issues. Editorial control stays with PFA, and pre-publication access is not a right purchased through advertising or affiliate status.

Do affiliate partners get more favorable coverage?

No. Affiliate tracking and editorial judgment are separate. The commercial relationship should be disclosed without changing the evidence standard.

How can a reader report an error?

Use the Submit a Correction page and identify the exact page, claim and supporting source. We review the evidence and update the record when the correction is supported.

Related standards

Review Methodology

See how these editorial rules are applied to individual firm reviews.

Open methodology

Evidence Standards

See how PFA labels and verifies different kinds of evidence.

Open standards

Corrections Policy

See how factual corrections and disagreements are handled.

Open policy
Prop Firm Advisor
Logo