Editorial Standards

We're a publication for practitioners, written by practitioners. The standards below are how we keep that honest.

How we research

Primary sources first. Vendor documentation, model cards, public API responses, and reproducible benchmarks beat second-hand summaries.
Hands-on testing. When we evaluate a model or platform, we run it ourselves against representative tasks. We say so when we haven't.
Numbers come with methodology. Latencies, accuracies, and costs are accompanied by how we measured them.

Fact-checking

Every claim of fact is sourced. Comparison articles cite the version and date of every product compared.
Articles touching specific products are reviewed against current public documentation before publishing.
When sources are paywalled, behind login, or otherwise unverifiable, we say so in the article.

Corrections

Found an error? Email us at editorial@voiceagentguide.com.

Corrections are made inline with a dated update note at the top of the article. Substantive corrections (not typos) are also called out in the article's “Last updated” line. We don't silently rewrite history.

Independence

No sponsored content or paid placements.
No affiliate links in editorial copy.
Tools listed in the directory are curated for relevance, not commercial relationships.
Vendor relationships, when relevant, are disclosed in the article.

Conflicts of interest

Where any author has a relationship with a company or product covered in an article — past employment, advisory role, financial interest — that relationship is disclosed in the article itself.