Evidence deserves an
accountable record.

This policy applies to CiteSurge Insights, comparisons, public methodology pages, platform guides, and other research-led public material. CiteSurge is a product owned and operated by Brainjuice Labs LDA. Mark Laursen is the accountable named author where his byline appears; otherwise CiteSurge is the accountable publisher. Publication review is internal unless a page explicitly names and links an external reviewer. A profile, directory listing, or customer relationship is not described as independent review.

Who is accountable for CiteSurge public research?

Every research-led page identifies its accountable author or publisher, its publication or review date, and the scope of the material. A named author remains responsible for source selection, factual accuracy, disclosed interpretation, and corrections. CiteSurge remains responsible for material published under the company name.

Authorship means responsibility for the finished public work. It is not assigned to someone who only approved a topic, provided a quotation, or operated a tool. The canonical Mark Laursen author page lists the CiteSurge work currently attributed to him and links the public profiles used to establish identity continuity. Contributor, reviewer, and source roles are named separately when they exist. CiteSurge does not imply external peer review when a page has received only internal editorial review.

Public pages distinguish current product facts from proposals, future work, and unsupported outcomes. Protected implementation details may be withheld, but that boundary cannot be used to turn an unverified claim into a public fact. Client examples, performance changes, and case-study claims remain unpublished unless the baseline, intervention, later observation, limitations, and permission form a reviewable evidence chain.

How are claims sourced, reviewed, and corrected?

Material factual claims use identifiable sources appropriate to the claim. Pages preserve source links, relevant dates, scope, and limitations where the format allows. Official vendor material can establish what a vendor says or documents; it is not treated as independent proof of performance. CiteSurge analysis is labelled as analysis rather than fact.

• Sources are checked for identity, relevance, currency, and whether they support the exact wording and scope of the claim.
• Quantitative claims retain the unit, population, date, and limitation needed to interpret the number. CiteSurge does not manufacture a statistic when public evidence is absent.
• Comparisons publish their criteria, evidence date, scoring basis, buyer-fit boundaries, and correction route. A score is an assessment under the published rubric, not an objective market fact.
• A substantive review advances the visible review or modification date. Cosmetic changes do not receive a new freshness date.

Correction requests can be sent through the public contact route or to hello@citesurge.com. A useful request identifies the page, disputed statement, and supporting source. CiteSurge reviews the request against the cited evidence and stated limitations. Supported corrections are applied to the public page; material changes update its review date and, where necessary, its conclusion or disclosure. No private customer information is required to question a public claim.

How are conflicts of interest and commercial interests handled?

CiteSurge participates in the AI-visibility market that its public research discusses. That commercial interest is disclosed where it can affect how a reader interprets a comparison or recommendation. CiteSurge does not present its own ranking, directory profile, or company-authored analysis as independent validation.

The public AI-visibility tools comparison is authored by Mark Laursen for CiteSurge, includes CiteSurge as a vendor, and publishes its scoring rubric and evidence sources. Inclusion, ranking, correction, or editorial treatment is not sold. If CiteSurge later accepts sponsorship, affiliate compensation, supplied products, or another material relationship tied to a page, that relationship must be disclosed on the affected page before publication. A commercial relationship cannot be concealed inside a neutral-sounding methodology statement.

Company profiles on LinkedIn, GitHub, Crunchbase, Clutch, and YouTube are used as organization identity references. Personal profiles linked from an author page are identity references for that person. Neither category is counted as an independent review merely because an external platform hosts it. Reviews and testimonials are published only when they come from real people with permission and are represented without invented context or selective rewriting.

How does CiteSurge use AI tools in publication work?

AI tools may assist with research organization, outlining, drafting, transcription, editing, or quality checks. They are not accepted as the sole source for a factual claim, quotation, statistic, credential, review, or customer outcome. The accountable human author or publisher must inspect the supporting source and approve the finished public material.

AI-assisted text is subject to the same sourcing, conflict, correction, and limitation rules as any other draft. Generated citations are checked against the source they claim to represent. Unsupported citations are removed. Confidential customer information is not inserted into a public drafting workflow to create examples or proof. CiteSurge does not use an AI tool's fluency as evidence that a claim is true or that wording is unique.

The publication decision remains human and accountable. Readers should rely on the named sources, disclosed method, visible dates, and correction route, not on an assertion that a particular drafting tool was or was not used. The public methodology explains how evidence and inference are separated, while How We Validate states the proof required before CiteSurge publishes an outcome.