Trust & transparency
BasinCheck Editorial policy
This policy explains how we research, check, and correct BasinCheck content, including AI-assisted work. Readers should be able to tell a legal requirement from a recommendation or a product claim.
Effective August 28, 2026. Updated August 30, 2026.
Primary sources first
Regulatory statements are checked against OSHA, the eCFR, ISO, or another responsible standards body. Vendor claims are checked against current product documentation and clearly separated from our analysis.
What we checked
We state whether a conclusion comes from hands-on product access, public documentation, pricing pages, customer evidence, or third-party reviews. We do not present desk research as product testing.
Commercial transparency
BasinCheck publishes content in a market where it also sells software. We can recommend BasinCheck when the fit is supported, but comparisons must include limitations, suitable alternatives, and the criteria behind the conclusion.
Human accountability
A person remains responsible for the published version. Regulatory guidance and product recommendations are not auto-published from an AI system.
How we use AI tools
We may use AI tools to find sources, outline, draft, summarize, write code, or check work. AI output is not a source. Factual claims still need a traceable source, and a responsible editor decides what is published. We do not add invisible text, fake authors, or unsupported first-hand claims to influence search or answer engines.
When the origin of media matters, we preserve available provenance information and do not use synthetic media to misrepresent a real person, event, customer, or field condition. We disclose synthetic media when a reader could otherwise mistake it for a real person or event.
Safety and regulatory content
We link to the relevant laws, standards, and official guidance and distinguish legal requirements from voluntary standards and operational recommendations. BasinCheck content is educational, not legal advice, certification, or a substitute for a qualified safety professional.
Comparison methodology
Software comparisons start with the buyer's operating context, then assess relevant capabilities such as offline work, field usability, corrective-action tracking, reporting, implementation, and total cost. Dates and plan details are included when available because vendor capabilities and prices change. Rankings reflect our assessment for a particular buyer. Read each product's fit and limitations before deciding whether it belongs on your shortlist.
Updates and corrections
Guides and comparisons carry an updated date. We revise them when relevant regulations, standards, products, prices, or source information change. If you find a factual error or missing context, send the page URL and supporting source through our contact page. We correct confirmed errors and update the updated date when the change affects the guidance.
Report a correction →