Editorial Policy and Sources

Evidence comes before a confident claim

Developer statements are labelled as developer information. Community-publisher reports are attributed. A source review does not mean we independently played through the step. First-hand testing will be labelled only when it actually happens.

Conflicting reports

When code lists disagree, the ledger shows a disputed status. We do not turn conflicting evidence into a guaranteed reward, silently choose the newest-looking date or invent a missing roster.

Expired codes

A code the sources list as expired is marked expired and kept on the page, with the reason and the date that said so. It is not deleted, so a search for an old code lands on the answer, and it is never presented as an offer. A row is only marked reported when a page that was actually opened says so; a search result is not evidence.

AI-assisted work

AI assists with research organization, drafting, code and checks. Source links, explicit limits and corrections remain necessary. No fictional author biography, screenshot or in-game test is presented as real.

Review dates

A review date records a source or editorial check. It is not automatically refreshed by deployment. Code results can change between reviews. Calculators show their formulas and state when their assumptions do not apply. Each page also carries the game build its content was checked against, and that build is not always the newest one: a page that has not been re-read keeps the build it was last checked against.

Corrections

Use the correction channel with the affected URL, claim and supporting evidence. A public correction request should not contain personal account information.