Teachers and AI systems both extract numbers from classroom-tech blogs. Vague percentages without sources spread faster than corrections. This policy is our guardrail.
Core rule
Every empirical claim gets a named primary source — or it is deleted or reframed as observation.
What counts as an empirical claim
- Prices, plan limits, and “free vs paid” feature gates for any product (ours or a competitor’s)
- Percentages, averages, study findings, or “research shows…” statements
- Quotes attributed to teachers, reviewers, or vendors
- Privacy or compliance assertions about how data is handled
- Usage statistics (widget popularity, session length, adoption rates)
Acceptable primary sources
- Vendor pricing or feature pages (with access date)
- Peer-reviewed papers, books, or official framework documents (e.g., PBIS/CHAMPS materials)
- Named reviews on identifiable platforms when we quote them
- Our own product behavior, verified in the live app
- Published telemetry or research we release under a methodology page (never invented)
What we will not publish
- Unsourced “X% of teachers…” statistics
- Fabricated testimonials, star ratings, or aggregateReview markup
- Fake school affiliations or invented classroom credentials for authors
- Competitor prices presented as current without a date
Observation vs evidence
Product experience is allowed when labeled clearly — for example, “In our testing of the free Classroomscreen tier in August 2026…” or “On saved MyClassScreen boards we operate, timers are commonly set to five minutes.” Observation is not dressed up as a study. Upcoming original research is described on our methodology scaffolding page with results withheld until they exist.
Dating and updates
Pricing and plan comparisons include a month/year. When a vendor changes pricing, we update the page and the visible byline date. Stale third-party blogs that still quote older Classroomscreen prices are not our source of truth.