Use facts we can support.
Business addresses, service availability, prices and program terms should match confirmed business information. Where a detail has not been confirmed, omit it or describe the limitation. Do not create fictional offices, clients, customer reviews or performance results.
Customer stories require real project information and permission for the details being published. Illustrative examples should be identified as examples and must not be presented as evidence of client outcomes.
Keep sources close to the claim.
Use primary sources for platform policies and technical guidance where possible. A source must support the particular claim being made. Publication dates and policy changes matter when a statement could become outdated.
A link to a tool or platform is not a claim of certification, partnership or endorsement. Such claims need separate verification.
Review AI-assisted work.
AI can assist with drafting, development and research, but its output is not proof that a claim is true. Review names, figures, quotations, links and technical statements before publication.
A reusable page layout does not justify publishing the same explanation for every city. Each page should have a useful purpose and supported information; combine pages when a separate page would not help the reader.
Make corrections when information changes.
If you find an inaccurate business detail, broken reference or unclear service statement, contact Dappr and identify the page and issue. The published content can then be checked against the current source.
Content review dates should reflect substantive review. Changing a date alone does not make an article current, and general educational content does not replace advice tailored to an individual business.