Editorial standards
Make the claim easy to check.
DearBureau publishes educational and comparison content to help consumers understand a record and make their own decisions. These standards govern how that content is sourced, dated, disclosed, and corrected.
Reviewed
Editorial purpose
Help readers understand the record—not manufacture a dispute.
Our content should clarify what a report says, what a term means, which facts deserve verification, and which official resource may apply.
DearBureau does not publish tactics for disputing accurate information, promise removals or score gains, or treat a software finding as proof that a report is wrong.
Where the facts do not support action, the content should say so. Where identity theft, a complaint process, or individualized legal help may be more appropriate, the page should identify that boundary without pretending to decide the reader’s case.
Source hierarchy
Primary sources come first.
A citation must support the claim beside it. A familiar logo is not a substitute for evidence.
Government and statutory sources
For consumer rights and process guidance, we prefer current CFPB, FTC, IdentityTheft.gov, USAGov, statutes, regulations, and official court material.
Provider-owned terms
For a company’s price, plan, features, guarantee, cancellation terms, or availability, we link to the provider’s own current pages.
Official bureau documentation
For a bureau’s report fields, portal behavior, or result language, we use that bureau’s consumer documentation and label the source.
Secondary context
We may use reliable secondary reporting for context, but not when a primary source is available for the factual claim.
Before publication
Separate facts, analysis, and product interest.
Readers should be able to see which statement came from a source and where DearBureau is making a comparison or judgment.
- Dates
- Changing facts receive a visible reviewed or checked date. A date changes only after a substantive review—not to manufacture freshness.
- Authorship
- We identify a person or qualified reviewer only when that attribution is genuine. Until then, DearBureau and its operator are the accountable publisher.
- Automation
- Automated tools may assist with structure, drafting, link checks, or consistency. They are not treated as sources, and their output must be checked against the cited record.
- Legal limits
- Educational material is general information, not legal advice. High-risk or individualized questions are not answered by inventing certainty the sources do not provide.
Commercial disclosure
DearBureau has an interest in the reader’s choice.
That interest belongs in the open. It does not change the source requirement.
DearBureau writes its own product and comparison pages and may benefit when a reader chooses the software. Comparison pages disclose that interest, use the same core decision factors, and link changing claims directly to provider-owned or government sources.
DearBureau does not accept payment from a compared provider for inclusion or for a favorable conclusion. If that policy changes, the relevant page must disclose the relationship beside the recommendation.
Updates and corrections
Correct the page, the date, and the dependent claim together.
Prices, provider terms, report formats, and agency procedures can change.
When we find a material error, we correct the visible copy and any metadata or structured data that repeats it. Substantive changes receive a new reviewed date. Minor spelling or formatting changes do not.
To report a possible error, email support@dearbureau.com with the page URL, the statement in question, and a source that helps us check it. Do not send a full credit report, Social Security number, password, or other sensitive document.
See the standard applied
Read a dated, source-backed comparison.
The comparison library shows the research date, commercial interest, changing terms, and source behind each material claim.
Browse comparisons