FlatRelay editorial standards and corrections

What readers should expect

FlatRelay publishes practical guidance for manufacturers and B2B suppliers improving their websites. Each resource should help a reader make a specific decision: what information to publish, how to verify it, or how to measure a change. A longer page is not automatically a better page. We expand an article when additional examples, evidence, or instructions make it more useful.

These resources are published by FlatRelay, a consultancy that sells the services discussed. They are not independent reviews of FlatRelay. Our About page identifies the business and founder. Organization authorship does not imply that a named engineer, certification body, or independent editor reviewed a technical claim.

How we distinguish evidence from illustration

• Platform guidance: Link to the platform’s documentation next to the claim it supports. Documentation explains a stated requirement; it does not establish that our service produces a particular outcome.
• Observed result: Identify the site, observation date, test conditions, sample, and limitations. A finding on our own site is not a customer case study.
• Worked example: Label invented companies, specifications, lead times, and measurements as illustrative. Never turn an example into a testimonial or an implied customer result.
• Recommendation: Explain the reasoning and what would change the recommendation. Where evidence is unavailable, say so.

Our SEO experiment illustrates this distinction: it records a starting point and explicitly states that growth results are not yet available. It should not be read as proof that a manufacturer will gain traffic or qualified inquiries.

Sources, authorship, and tools

We prefer primary documentation for platform requirements and the original record for business facts. A supplier’s current certificate, approved capability sheet, or signed commercial policy is more useful for a specific claim than an unattributed summary. We do not publish confidential customer documents as proof without permission.

AI tools can assist research, drafting, and code changes. Their output is not a source, a credential, or evidence of firsthand experience. Claims need support regardless of the tool used to write them. We do not label material as independently reviewed unless that review has actually happened.

Google’s helpful content guidance encourages clarity about who created content, how it was produced, and why. These are useful editorial questions, not a checklist that guarantees a ranking.

Updates and corrections

The displayed update date refers to a substantive revision of the resource. It does not imply that every linked platform policy was independently re-tested on that date. Where a finding depends on an earlier observation, the text keeps that original date and its limitations.

To report an error, email [email protected] with the page URL, the disputed statement, and supporting evidence. Corrections should identify what changed; evidence that contradicts our guidance is a reason to revise it. We do not promise a fixed response time for editorial requests.

September 14, 2026 revision: Replaced the original publishing-format introduction with explicit source, disclosure, authorship, and correction standards. The original URL is retained so existing links remain useful.

Where to begin

For a concrete implementation task, use the manufacturing capability page checklist. For measurement, use the AI supplier visibility test protocol. Both separate operational recommendations from claims about search outcomes.