Editorial Policy
How Vitality Atlas writes, checks, updates, and limits wellness guidance so routines stay source-checked, cautious, and educational.
How this boundary works
Editorial choices start with the claim, the user task, source limits, and what could go wrong if the claim is overstated.
When sources conflict or stay narrow, the copy names the limit and keeps the recommendation modest, optional, and reversible.
It does not turn official sources into private advice or hide uncertainty behind confident wellness language.
Prefer pages that show sources, risk boundaries, lower-risk alternatives, and a clear reason to read the next article.
Source conflict, official guidance changes, new safety concerns, and high-cost claims trigger a narrower verdict or a clearer skip line.
Questions that depend on symptoms, diagnosis, medication, pregnancy, lab results, injury, or crisis support are outside the publishing model.
Non-Evidence pages that sound too much like claim reviews and Evidence Lab verdict cards get extra checks for overstatement.
If sources support a narrow routine outcome but marketing language promises broad health change, the article keeps the narrow outcome and makes the broad promise skippable.
Pages with high cost, changing public guidance, source disagreement, or stronger safety boundaries are updated before low-risk routine pages.
Source standard
Articles cite official public-health sources, research explainers, or specialist organizations. Anonymous social posts, testimonials, and product marketing are not used as health evidence.
Claim standard
A claim has to be written in plain language before it is discussed. If the evidence is mixed, indirect, or limited, the page must say so and offer a safer everyday comparison.
Review boundary
Current pages are checked against the sources shown on each page. No named clinician review is shown unless a real clinician profile is configured.
Update rhythm
Article dates are shown so stale topics can be revisited. High-caution topics, trend claims, and source changes should be checked first.
Correction posture
When a source changes or an error is found, the affected guide should be updated with the new source, clearer caution language, and a fresh update date.
What gets slowed down
Supplement claims, device claims, extreme routines, pregnancy, medication, chronic illness, mental health crisis, injury, and symptom questions get stronger caution language or are kept outside the site's advice boundary.
High-risk page format
High-risk Evidence Lab pages should use a bottom-line verdict, claim ranking, risk ladder, source list, and FAQ. A generic routine layout is not enough when a trend can affect breathing, heat exposure, glucose interpretation, or supplement safety.
Reader protection rule
If a reader could confuse education with a personal instruction, the page should become narrower, more conditional, and more explicit about when to stop or ask for qualified care.