Sources stay in the story.
Articles link to the material supporting their explanations. Launch explainers use primary documentation. Automatically generated reported updates must pass a stricter workflow with at least two independently named publishers supporting each extracted factual claim.
What the automated workflow checks.
The pipeline fetches recent articles from configured, allowlisted feeds, checks permitted access, extracts source text and asks a model to identify claims with exact supporting quotes. It checks that the quotes really occur in the fetched text and come from the required publishers. Separate calls line-edit the draft, compare its central question and conclusions against the article archive, and check the complete final text against the claims and sources. Archive-wide prose checks also reject substantial recycled passages. Each proposed image has a distinct claim-linked subject plan and must pass a separate vision review for relevance, information value and the absence of living creatures. If a required review is unavailable or uncertain, publication is skipped. Unknown evidence IDs, unsupported claims, prohibited hype, invalid structure and duplicate stories are rejected.
What those checks cannot prove.
A quoted source can itself be wrong. Publishers can rely on the same underlying announcement, and an automated reviewer can miss an error. Two different publisher names are not proof of independent original investigation. We do not claim that AI review guarantees truth. An optional human-review mode saves drafts rather than publishing automatically.
No fabricated authority.
We do not invent interviews, benchmarks, product testing, expert quotes or popularity figures. A vendor statement must remain attributed to that vendor. Speculation, unconfirmed leaks and unsupported predictions are not acceptable substitutes for evidence. Headlines must describe the supported story, not promise an outcome the article cannot establish.
Images should explain the subject.
Original diagrams identify simplified relationships and hypothetical values. New generated images must show precisely relevant nonliving subjects and pass an automated visual risk screen; unrelated decorative technology art, living creatures and misleading diagrams are rejected. Automated checks can still miss errors.
AI images are illustrations.
Concept artwork is labeled as AI-generated. It is not presented as a photograph of an actual product, person, event or test result. Generated imagery never serves as evidence for a claim.
SEO for people, not word stuffing.
Descriptive headings, useful summaries, clean links, relevant keywords, structured data, sitemaps and an RSS feed help readers discover content. Topic terms come from monitored feeds, not invented global trend statistics. We do not add unrelated viral words or guarantee search rankings or organic traffic.
Corrections and changing information.
Publication and modification timestamps are kept separate. Owners should update an article and add a correction note when a material factual issue is found, or remove the story if it cannot be supported. Use the correction channel and include the article link, the disputed claim and supporting evidence.
Depth without padding.
Each article must contain at least 1,500 words in its main section paragraphs, excluding navigation, sources and FAQs, and must have a cover plus three inline images. The archive uses labeled AI editorial illustrations and original explanatory diagrams. Automated articles require four successfully generated and separately reviewed informative concept images. Depth means clear answers, practical examples labeled as hypothetical, conditions and meaningful explanations—not repeated paragraphs or keyword stuffing. If available evidence cannot support that depth, publication is skipped.
Separate facts from exercises.
Suggested checklists and exercises are editorial guidance, not claims that a test was performed or that a source mandates that exact process. Specifications explain mechanisms; measurements require a stated workload and actual testing. This publication does not invent speed gains, reviews, audience counts or search popularity.
Natural writing, honest authorship.
We favor direct explanations, specific examples and varied sentence structure over stock introductions and repetitive summaries. AI assistance remains disclosed. We do not invent personal experience or describe generated text as human-written. A new post must answer a distinct question or explain a materially new, supported development; changing a headline or paraphrasing an old article is not originality.
Cadence has a hard ceiling.
The target is one to three articles per Asia/Dhaka day, with three scheduled attempts. The maximum of three counts all published articles. The minimum is a goal, not permission to fabricate or recycle: missing evidence, unavailable services or failed review can produce no post. Archive dates were redistributed editorially on request and are not assertions of original reporting dates.
Visual explanation without visual hype.
Graphic covers highlight the actual subject rather than inventing a result or product claim. Code-drawn explanatory diagrams retain their source notes, hypothetical labels and full-size links. Where provided, separate light and dark palettes follow the reading theme. Covers and illustrative artwork are not evidence of measured performance.
Free capacity is a ceiling, not a quality shortcut.
Free-account eligibility and quotas must be verified by the operator. The isolated publisher reserves local daily/minute budgets before a request, uses only approved free model routes, blocks exhausted providers and can fall back to original claim-linked illustrated evidence notes. Every image still requires vision review. If free capacity, permitted sources, originality or review are insufficient, the run publishes nothing. No paid API or automatic top-up is used to meet a schedule.