TRUST AND TRANSPARENCY

Editorial, evidence, and corrections policy

ChangeLoop 7 publishes product explanations for accuracy and usefulness, not to manufacture search traffic. Public pages must describe the product customers can actually use and must keep research findings, product rules, model analysis, and assumptions separate.

Effective and last updated: October 24, 2026.

Who publishes the content?

Public content is published by the ChangeLoop 7 product team. We do not invent an expert byline, credential, customer result, or institutional affiliation. If qualified external review is added later, the reviewer and scope of review will be identified on the relevant page.

How are claims sourced?

Research claims should link to the original paper, DOI record, official documentation, or another traceable primary source.
Model-generated text is never treated as a source.
A customer-facing counter-intuitive insight requires at least three traceable supporting cases or sources inside the product workflow.
Statistics must identify their source and relevant date; unsupported marketing numbers are not published.

What claims are prohibited?

We do not promise that a habit forms in seven days, that a customer will be cured or permanently changed, that a page will be indexed within a fixed time, that an AI service will cite the site, or that a fixed number of leads or sales will result.

How is AI used in publishing?

AI may assist with drafting, organization, comparison, and quality checks. The public page must still be reviewed against product behavior and cited sources. AI output does not replace source verification, human responsibility, or the product's server-side evidence rules.

How are pages updated?

Pages include a visible update date when factual or policy content changes. Material changes to evidence standards, safety boundaries, pricing, privacy, or terms must be reflected on the authoritative policy page instead of being silently contradicted elsewhere.

How are errors corrected?

Factual errors, broken citations, misleading product descriptions, and material omissions follow the correction procedure below. Legal terms, privacy terms, and pricing remain governed by their dedicated pages.

Health and safety boundary

ChangeLoop 7 is a self-directed planning product. Its content is not medical advice, psychotherapy, diagnosis, crisis support, or a substitute for a licensed professional. Public content must not blur that boundary.

What qualifies as customer-facing evidence?

A source must have a traceable identity, relevant content, and explicit limits. A stable URL and, where available, a DOI identify the work. Invented references, unverifiable titles, and a real paper used to support an unrelated claim fail the standard. The product checks source identifiers and requires at least three distinct traceable sources or cases for a proposed cognition; unsupported or incomplete evidence blocks release rather than becoming a verified-sounding statement.

The source explanation must distinguish its study population, context, design, and uncertainty from the customer's situation. A seven-day observation remains an individual record. It can inform the next choice but cannot establish a clinical finding or a general success rate. The research method and claim register provides a claim-by-claim account of support and limitations.

For example, a study with 192 adults who selected a nutrition behavior does not establish that a seven-day software plan improves work performance. The Keller and colleagues trial followed daily observations for 84 days and compared two cue formats. A public summary must preserve that context when discussing the result. Source accessed October 24, 2026.

What role do the models play?

Models propose, challenge, correct, and consolidate a bounded plan at fixed checkpoints. They do not become its evidence. Server-side structure and source gates complement prompts because a prompt alone does not guarantee factual accuracy. Private reviewer roles and agreement are not substitutes for independent scientific studies or the customer's own observation.

How to report a factual problem

Email legal@changeloop7.com with the page URL, the exact disputed statement, why it is inaccurate, and a primary source for the proposed correction. Reports can cover an unsupported interpretation, an incorrect author or DOI, a broken source, a mismatch with current product behavior, or a contradiction among pricing, privacy, terms, refund, or security pages. Do not send passwords, API keys, medical records, or unnecessary personal data.

Locate the precise statement and preserve the context needed to assess it.
Compare it with the original source and the current product behavior.
Classify the result as no change, clarification, routine correction, or material correction.
Update conflicting public pages and machine-readable versions together.
Add a visible note when the correction changes the meaning materially, including the page's modified date.

An opinion disagreement, a request to hide accurate information, or an answer generated by another AI is not automatically evidence of a factual error. Privacy and account deletion requests follow the Privacy Policy; privacy questions can go to privacy@changeloop7.com. This editorial process does not replace those procedures or promise a response deadline that has not been published.

Public correction and consolidation log

October 24, 2026: the evidence and corrections policies were consolidated into this editorial policy. The source map, claim register, and research foundations were consolidated into research method; behavior-change questions were incorporated into FAQ. The FAQ's structured answers were aligned with its visible answers. These changes organize the existing standards and correct inconsistent summaries; they do not add product-effectiveness evidence.

Historical note, September 17, 2026: the previous corrections page recorded no material public corrections at that date. That was a dated log statement, not evidence that all content was error-free.