Editorial Standards & Corrections
Last updated: March 31, 2026
This page explains how AI Job Risk Index is produced and held to a standard: who is responsible, how pages are researched and reviewed, how we source evidence, how we keep editorial control, how we handle corrections, and how advertising is kept separate from editorial judgment.
The editorial team behind AI Job Risk Index owns the scoring framework and every fixed guide, and is accountable for what is published. Corporate details about the operator are on our About page.
Who is responsible
AI Job Risk Index is run by a dedicated editorial team that owns the scoring framework, evaluation dimensions, page structure, publication rules, and final quality decisions. The operating company behind the site is introduced on our About page.
Nothing is published automatically as a finished page: a human editor is responsible for reviewing fixed guides and for any correction decision.
How pages are produced and reviewed
Long-form occupation, industry, and country guides are treated as durable editorial assets, not disposable generated copy. Each one aims for role-specific substance and avoids repeated boilerplate.
Before a page is treated as publishable, we check its structure, internal links, score-based logic, translation completeness, and visible rendering. A weak page is treated as a page that needs revision, not as a finished page.
Sourcing and evidence standards
Editorial claims about how AI affects a role are grounded in observable evidence: capability releases, enterprise adoption, regulation, and reported implementation patterns. Our flagship analysis pages cite their sources directly so readers can verify them.
Risk scores are a comparative editorial signal from 0 to 100, not a literal forecast of layoffs. The full scoring method is documented on our Methodology page.
Editorial control
The scoring framework, evaluation dimensions, and every fixed guide are defined, maintained, and reviewed by our editorial team before publication. We use data and software tooling to process the weekly signals and to work across languages, but editorial decisions and the final wording are made by our team.
Every score, guide, and correction is decided by our editors against a documented framework. The framework and standards are ours, and they do not change on their own.
Accuracy, updates, and freshness
Risk scores and weekly rankings are refreshed on a weekly cycle so readers can follow change over time rather than a single snapshot. Fixed long-form guides are reviewed on a separate schedule so they do not drift into weak or outdated states.
We keep publication and update dates honest. We do not artificially bump dates to appear fresh; a shown update date reflects a real change.
Corrections policy
If you find a factual mistake, a broken link, misleading wording, or a page that no longer offers enough value, please tell us through the contact page. We review every correction request manually.
When a correction is warranted, we update the page and, where relevant, its shown update date. A stable page is not a page we ignore — it is a page we expect to improve when the explanation can be made more useful.
Independence, funding, and advertising
This site is funded by its operator and may display third-party advertising. Advertising and any commercial relationship never influence the risk scores, rankings, or editorial conclusions on this site.
Scores are produced by the same documented method regardless of advertising. If we ever publish sponsored or affiliate content, it will be clearly labeled as such.
What this site does not provide
This site does not provide personal legal, tax, investment, medical, or career advice. Scores and guides are comparative research material, not guaranteed predictions of individual outcomes.
Real-world AI impact also depends on region, company design, regulation, cost, business conditions, and a worker's own skills, so readers should combine this site with role-specific judgment.
Questions or corrections? Use the contact page.