Good Waves
← Back to the edition

Editorial standard · public pilot

How we select, verify and correct stories.

Good Waves does not look for reassurance at any cost. It looks for observable responses to real problems and keeps the result, source and limitation together.

01

A story enters only if it clears four questions

  • What public or collective problem does it address?
  • What concrete response was tried, by whom and at what scale?
  • What observable result or evaluation supports the story?
  • What limitations, exclusions, costs or unknowns remain?
02

The source closest to the claim comes first

  • Public records, datasets, laws, registries and original results.
  • Peer-reviewed research and evaluations with readable methods.
  • Independent reporting that names and links its sources.
  • Organizational releases only as claims by that organization, never as independent verification.
03

What the automated pilot does not publish

  • Emotional uplift without a verifiable public-interest fact.
  • Launches, awards or promises presented as demonstrated results.
  • Medical, legal, financial or public-safety advice or judgments.
  • Interviews, personal data or third-party media without documented rights and consent.
04

The daily 08:00 cycle

  • It opens original sources and uses snippets and aggregators for discovery only.
  • It updates Italian and English with the same numbers, dates, uncertainty and URLs.
  • It checks competitors and improves content or method only when evidence supports a reason.
  • It tests, commits, publishes and verifies the domain; a failure leaves a receipt and blocks any success claim.
05

Corrections and accountability

  • A material correction must state what changed, when and why.
  • Numbers, dates and wording are not silently rewritten.
  • The canonical source is corrected before its derivatives.
  • This pilot is not a newsroom: independent fact-checking and human approvals remain the operating goal.

Operational transparency

Updates register

A date alone does not prove that the site was actually reviewed. We therefore record what changed, which checks ran, and which editorial limitation remains open.

  1. Three stories refreshed and competitor analysis made public

    The edition replaced three briefs with current sources, retained seven still-valid stories, and expanded the competitive review to 55 products and formats. The bilingual analysis now covers short briefings, comparison apps, AI news and new Italian benchmarks across email, audio and social, and is publicly inspectable. Codex-assisted research; independent human review is still missing.

  2. First source-checkable bilingual edition

    Ten Italian and English briefs were published with a result, limitation and primary source, alongside the first structured market review.

Automated window: every day at 08:00 America/Los_Angeles. A failed review leaves a receipt and cannot be presented as a successful update.