Claims are tied to architecture
When Plain Tools says a workflow is local or no-upload, that statement should reflect the actual execution path in the browser, not a marketing summary.
Editorial standards
Editorial policy
Plain Tools publishes product pages, workflow guides, comparison pages, and methodology documents that are meant to be usable, verifiable, and consistent with how the tools actually behave. This page explains the standards we use when we publish or revise those documents.
Last reviewed: March 11, 2026
Guides must lead to working routes
Informational pages should funnel into the live tool, canonical status route, or closest hub page rather than leaving users on disconnected informational dead ends.
Methodology pages describe real inputs
Status pages, verification pages, and diagnostic routes should explain what is measured, what is inferred, and what a user should validate independently.
Updates are made when behaviour changes
We prefer fewer but real update dates. When a workflow, verification step, or route structure changes, the support and methodology pages should be reviewed as part of the release.
How reviews are triggered
Editorial review should happen when tool behaviour changes, when the internal linking structure for a cluster changes, when a trust claim becomes broader or narrower, or when new hub pages change how users are meant to navigate the site. This is especially important for privacy explanations, status-check methodology, and comparison pages.
Not every page is updated on a fixed calendar. Instead, the highest-value cluster pages are reviewed when there is a clear product, architecture, or search-structure reason to do so. That keeps visible update dates more credible and avoids false freshness signals.