Editorial and Verification Policy
We use AI-assisted research to assemble useful answers, while keeping the evidence boundary and remaining uncertainty visible.
How evidence is handled
AI inference alone is not published as a confirmed game fact. We distinguish official or developer material, community reports, empirical observations, and research synthesis instead of treating them as equivalent.
Current-version evidence is also kept separate from historical evidence. An old patch, a removed source, or a contradiction lowers confidence even when the underlying observation may still be useful.
How we scope an answer
An empirical sample is not presented as an internal coded probability. When an exact mechanic cannot be confirmed, we narrow the page to the safe, supported scope and state the limitation rather than inventing precision.
Human gameplay is an optional escalation for exact tools, calculators, or unresolved high-impact mechanics; it is not a mandatory verification step for every page.
Updates and original work
Reported errors, patch changes, removed evidence, and new contradictions trigger re-research or an update to the page's scope and confidence. We synthesize evidence into an original answer and do not simply copy or closely paraphrase third-party content.