Editorial review

How the headshot desk evaluates itself, by the same standards

The desk is run by the same editorial standard it publishes for others. This page walks through the desk source hierarchy, its standards for verification, its language rules, and how a reader can hold the desk to them. Self-review is part of the publication standard.

Read the standardsSee corrections
Editorial review cover with metrics poster

Source hierarchy

What counts as a primary source on the desk

The desk uses four source classes, in descending order: organizer feeds, team channels, credible reporters with a public track record, and unverified rumor. The desk only publishes a brief or a dossier that is anchored to the strongest source class it has. If the only available source is rumor, the desk labels the brief explicitly and does not promote the rumor to news.

Organizer feeds are first because they are the canonical publisher of the format, the schedule and the bracket. Team channels are second because they are the canonical publisher of the roster. Credible reporters are third because they are an aggregator layer and may paraphrase. Rumor is fourth because the desk has no way to verify it on its own.

The hierarchy is published so that readers can hold the desk to it. If a brief is labelled as a credible reporter or rumor, the desk expects the reader to weight it accordingly. The desk does not promote a brief to a higher source class retroactively.

Verification

How a brief earns its source label

A brief earns its source label by one of three verification steps: a direct read of the canonical surface (the organizer feed or the team channel), a citation in a credible reporter's published output, or an on-the-record public statement from a named spokesperson. The desk does not invent sources, paraphrase private leaks or summarise third-party trackers without verification.

The verification step is recorded in the brief's working note, not always in the public copy. A reader who needs the verification trail can request it via the contact page. The desk responds to verification requests in the order they arrive.

Language rules

What the desk never writes

No "sure win"

The desk never publishes a tip styled as a "sure win" or a "lock". The desk publishes reads, not predictions.

No invented prize pools

Prize pools are public numbers published by the organizer. The desk only republishes the verified number and links back to the canonical source.

No private scrim leaks

The desk never paraphrases a private scrim leak as a hot take. The leak may be true; the desk still does not publish it.

Self-review metrics

How the desk measures itself

03-05Briefs published per week
00Hot-take tips published
00Invented prize pools published
01Sticky mobile CTA bar

Corrections

What the desk does when a brief is wrong

The desk publishes corrections as stand-alone notes with the original statement, the corrected statement and the date. The brief is updated in place and a note is pinned to the top of the corrections list. The desk never silently rewrites a published brief. The corrections protocol is editorial, not legal; the desk treats the brief as a public record and the reader as a fellow professional.

For the small number of cases where a brief cannot be corrected because the source has been removed or contested, the desk publishes a stand-alone retraction with the same protocol. The retraction is the fix.

Cadence

How often the desk reviews itself

The desk publishes a self-review once per quarter. The self-review covers the previous quarter's briefs, corrections, reader inbounds, and language patterns. The self-review is published as a stand-alone note on the newsroom and is linked from this page. The desk does not bury the self-review in a footer or hide it behind a navigation step.

The self-review is run by the standards contact. The standards contact is the only role on the desk that is allowed to publish a self-review, and the standards contact is the only role that replies to a reader correction. The editorial role and the standards role are deliberately separate so that no single person can mark their own work as final.

For the small number of cases where a self-review cannot be completed within the quarter — for example, when a public event in the cycle demands the desk's full attention — the desk publishes a stand-alone note explaining the delay. The note is the fix; the delay is not a secret.

Reader role

How a reader holds the desk to the standard

The desk's editorial standard is only as strong as the readers who hold it. The desk asks readers to write in via the contact page whenever a brief is wrong, a desk uses invented language, a wagering context hides an 18+ marker or the boundary on the responsible play page is crossed. The desk replies to every inbound.

The reader role also includes the verification step. Before acting on any claim, the desk asks the reader to verify the claim on a canonical source. The desk publishes the verification standard on the official-website page and asks the reader to apply the standard to any third-party surface that claims to be a headshot surface. The verification step is the reader's; the desk's role ends at publishing the standard.

What changes

What the desk looks at in the self-review, and what it ignores

The desk looks at the previous quarter's briefs and asks four questions. Were the briefs anchored to the strongest available source class? Did the briefs use invented language? Did the briefs paraphrase a private leak? Did the briefs hide an 18+ marker on a wagering context? The four questions are the desk's editorial standard, and the self-review holds the desk to the standard.

The desk looks at the previous quarter's corrections and asks two questions. Were the corrections published as stand-alone notes? Did the corrections reach the reader before the brief was syndicated? The two questions are the desk's corrections protocol, and the self-review holds the desk to the protocol.

The desk looks at the previous quarter's reader inbounds and asks three questions. Did the desk reply to every inbound within one working day? Did the desk publish a stand-alone correction when the inbound identified a real error? Did the desk escalate the inbound to a security report when the inbound identified a phishing surface? The three questions are the desk's reply window, and the self-review holds the desk to the window.

The desk ignores metrics that are not under the desk's control. The desk does not chase search engine rankings. The desk does not chase social media engagement. The desk does not chase page views. The desk's editorial role is to publish reads; the metrics are the operator's responsibility, not the desk's.

Writer handbook

What the desk's writer handbook says about the standard

The writer handbook is a short internal document that the editor publishes for the desk's writers. The handbook covers the source hierarchy, the verification step, the language rules, the corrections protocol, and the reply window. The handbook is updated when the editorial standard changes, and the updated handbook is published to the writers within one working day of the change.

The handbook is not a public document. The handbook is the desk's internal editorial discipline, and the desk does not publish the handbook on the public site. The public site publishes the editorial standard; the handbook translates the editorial standard into operational steps for the writers. The two documents are deliberately separate so that the public standard can be shared without exposing the internal workflow.

For readers who want to know how the desk translates the editorial standard into operational steps, the desk's standard practice is to publish a public summary of the workflow on the about page. The summary covers the five-step workflow, the source class for each step, and the language rules that apply to each step. The summary is the desk's public version of the workflow, and the summary is updated when the workflow changes.

What stays public

What the desk publishes about its own review, in three artefacts

The first artefact is the source hierarchy. The hierarchy is published in this section; the hierarchy is the desk's authoritative answer to the question "what counts as a primary source?". The hierarchy is shared with every reader; the hierarchy is the desk's commitment to transparency.

The second artefact is the verification step. The step is published in this section and the official-website page; the step is the desk's authoritative answer to the question "how do I verify a brief?". The step is shared with every reader; the step is the desk's commitment to verifiability.

The third artefact is the corrections protocol. The protocol is published on the newsroom page; the protocol is the desk's authoritative answer to the question "what happens when a brief is wrong?". The protocol is shared with every reader; the protocol is the desk's commitment to accountability.