Tech Junctions

Fact-Checking Process

Last updated: 20th May, 2026

Every article we publish goes through a structured fact-checking process before it reaches you. This page explains who checks what, how claims are verified, and what happens when something doesn't hold up.

Why We Publish This

Most content sites say they fact-check. Few explain what that actually involves. We're publishing our process so you can evaluate our standards for yourself — and so you can tell us when we fall short of them.

Who Fact-Checks

Fact-checking at Tech Junctions is never performed by the person who wrote the draft. Every article is reviewed by a designated fact-checker before a senior editor signs off on publication.

Roles

  • Draft author — the category-owning editor who researches and writes the article. Responsible for sourcing claims correctly during drafting, but not the final authority on accuracy.
  • Designated fact-checker — typically our display engineer (for picture quality, panel technology, and specification claims) or our calibration editor (for measurement data, settings recommendations, and testing methodology claims). The fact-checker is assigned based on the article's subject matter.
  • Senior editor— reviews the fact-checker's notes, confirms all flagged items have been resolved, and gives final sign-off before publication.

No article is published without all three roles completing their part of the process.

What Gets Checked

Every Article

Regardless of content type, the fact-checker verifies:

  • Product specifications — model numbers, panel types, resolution, refresh rates, port counts, dimensions, weight, and pricing are cross-referenced against the manufacturer's official specification sheet or product page at the time of publication.
  • Claims attributed to our testing — any measurement or observation we present as our own (brightness readings, color accuracy scores, input lag measurements, calibration settings) is traced back to the corresponding entry in our internal test log. If the log doesn't support the claim, the claim is revised or removed.
  • Claims attributed to third parties — any data or finding we cite from an external source (RTINGS, FCC filings, peer-reviewed research, manufacturer statements) is verified against the original source. We do not rely on secondhand reporting of third-party data.
  • Comparisons and rankings — when we say one TV outperforms another in a specific metric, the fact-checker confirms the comparison is based on measurements taken under the same conditions, using the same equipment and settings.
  • Pricing and availability — retail prices and availability status are verified on the publication date. Because pricing changes frequently, we note that prices are accurate “as of [date]” and update them during scheduled content refreshes.

Content-Type-Specific Checks

Different article types have additional verification requirements:

Single-model reviews — the fact-checker confirms the review unit's source (retail purchase, manufacturer loan, or field test), verifies that the minimum testing period was met (5 days), and cross-checks that every published measurement corresponds to the correct model and firmware version.

Best-of articles — the fact-checker verifies that every recommended model was tested within the current model year cycle, that side-by-side comparisons were conducted under documented conditions, and that no model has been discontinued or replaced by a successor since testing was completed.

Setup and installation guides — the fact-checker confirms that the described steps were performed and photographed during an actual installation, that tool recommendations are appropriate for the task, and that any safety-related guidance (wall stud requirements, weight ratings, electrical considerations) is accurate and current.

Cleaning and maintenance articles — the fact-checker verifies that the recommended methods were tested on the panel types specified, that product recommendations do not include substances known to damage display coatings, and that manufacturer cleaning guidelines have been consulted.

Troubleshooting articles — the fact-checker confirms that each described fix was tested on the hardware and software version specified, and that any steps involving electrical components or firmware changes include appropriate caution notes.

Accepted Source Tiers

Not all sources carry equal weight. We use a tiered system to evaluate the reliability of information:

Tier 1 — Primary Sources (Preferred)

  • Our own hands-on testing, documented in internal test logs with equipment, settings, and conditions recorded.
  • Manufacturer specification sheets and official product pages.
  • FCC filings and regulatory documentation.
  • Peer-reviewed display research and published academic papers.

Tier 2 — Trusted Third-Party Sources

  • Named third-party testing organizations we have explicitly vetted and trust (e.g., RTINGS).
  • Published industry standards documentation (CTA, VESA, HDMI Forum specifications).
  • On-the-record statements from manufacturer representatives, attributed by name and role.

Tier 3 — Contextual Sources (Not Cited as Evidence)

  • Forum posts, Reddit threads, and user communities — may be quoted for color or to illustrate a common reader experience, but the underlying factual claim must be independently verified through a Tier 1 or Tier 2 source before publication.
  • Retailer product descriptions — useful for pricing and availability but not treated as authoritative for technical specifications.
  • Other media outlets' reviews — we may reference for context but do not treat another publication's findings as a substitute for our own testing.

If a claim cannot be supported by a Tier 1 or Tier 2 source, it is either removed from the article or explicitly qualified with language that communicates the uncertainty (e.g., “reports suggest” or “based on user accounts, though we haven't independently verified this”).

The Fact-Checking Workflow

Here is the step-by-step process an article goes through:

  1. Draft submission — the author submits the completed draft along with a source list documenting where each factual claim originated.
  2. Fact-checker assignment — the senior editor assigns a fact-checker based on the article's subject matter.
  3. Line-by-line review — the fact-checker reads the article and flags every verifiable claim. Each flag is categorized as confirmed, needs source, needs revision, or remove.
  4. Source verification — the fact-checker independently checks each flagged claim against the cited source and records whether the source supports the claim as written. Where the source doesn't fully support the claim, the fact-checker proposes revised language.
  5. Author revision— the author receives the fact-checker's notes and revises the draft accordingly. Disagreements between the author and fact-checker are escalated to the senior editor for resolution.
  6. Final review — the senior editor reviews the revised draft, confirms all flags have been resolved, and signs off for publication.
  7. Publication— the article goes live with its byline and, where applicable, the reviewer's name.

The entire process typically takes 2–4 business days after the draft is submitted, depending on the complexity of the article and the volume of claims that require verification.

How We Handle Uncertainty

Not every question has a clear, sourceable answer — especially with newer TV technologies or unreleased features. When we encounter genuine uncertainty, we follow these principles:

  • We say what we know and label what we don't. If a specification hasn't been independently verified, we say so rather than presenting it as confirmed.
  • We don't speculate as fact. Predictions, expectations, and educated guesses are clearly framed as such, using language like “we expect,” “early indications suggest,” or “based on the previous generation.”
  • We revisit and update. If we publish with a qualified claim, we flag the article for follow-up once better information becomes available.

Post-Publication Checks

Fact-checking doesn't end at publication:

  • Reader-reported issues submitted through our contact page are routed to the editor-in-chief and reviewed against the same source standards described above.
  • Scheduled refreshes (annual for model reviews, at least yearly for best-of articles) include a full re-verification of specifications, pricing, availability, and any claims that may have been affected by firmware updates or product revisions.
  • Corrections, when warranted, follow our corrections policy. Every substantive correction is logged publicly.

What Fact-Checking Does Not Cover

To be transparent about the boundaries of this process:

  • Subjective assessments — when we describe a picture as “punchy” or a TV's motion handling as “smooth,” those are editorial judgments informed by experience. They reflect what our reviewers saw, not a measurement that can be verified against a spec sheet. We don't fact-check opinions, but we do ensure they're grounded in documented viewing.
  • Future claims— we don't verify predictions about unreleased products, future pricing, or upcoming features beyond attributing them to their source.
  • Third-party ad content — advertisements displayed on our site through programmatic ad networks are not subject to our editorial fact-checking process.

This page was last reviewed on 20th May, 2026. Questions about our fact-checking process can be submitted through our contact page.