Editorial Policy

Effective and last reviewed: July 26, 2026.

This policy explains how legal.yuocool.com selects topics, researches claims, uses AI assistance, handles commercial information and corrects errors. It is a working standard for the publisher; it does not claim that a licensed clinician, lawyer or accountant reviews every article.

Editorial scope

The Site currently focuses on practical nutrition decisions for U.S. readers: food-label interpretation, nutrition tools, preparing for nutrition care, and evaluating meal or weight-management services. Topics outside that focus should not be published merely to increase volume or target an unrelated search query.

An article must answer a defined reader question and add more than navigation, a list of links or rewritten provider copy. It should explain tradeoffs, limitations, a decision process and when the question requires individualized professional advice.

Source hierarchy

We prefer sources in this order when they are relevant:

1. current statutes, regulations, official government guidance and public program documents;
2. original research and systematic reviews;
3. universities, professional credentialing bodies and professional associations;
4. official product or provider documents for their own price, ingredients, features and terms;
5. reputable independent reporting or testing for context that primary sources do not supply.

A commercial provider’s website can establish what that provider currently says. It does not independently prove quality, safety, superiority, typical results or value. Search-result snippets, AI output and unattributed summaries are not sources.

Research and fact-checking

For material claims, the publisher should open the source, confirm that it supports the wording and record the date checked. Articles should link directly to the supporting page rather than a search-results page. A current source should be used for prices, benefits, rules, product labels, software features and other facts that change.

Before publication or material revision, the article should be checked for:

• clear title, introduction and H2/H3 structure;
• support for quantitative and health-related claims;
• distinction between requirement, recommendation and editorial judgment;
• current price, date and jurisdiction context where needed;
• limitations, missing data and contrary evidence;
• working links and readable mobile tables;
• one page-level H1 supplied by the theme, without a duplicate H1 in the body; and
• an appropriate disclaimer for medical, legal, financial or other high-risk topics.

Health and other high-risk information

General health information must not be written as a diagnosis, treatment plan or guarantee. Articles should identify situations that need a clinician or RDN and should not instruct a reader to stop medicine, ignore symptoms or replace professional care.

Legal, financial, insurance and tax topics should likewise explain jurisdiction, plan and individual limits. The Site does not invent professional credentials or imply a licensed review that did not occur.

Product, provider and service comparisons

A comparison must state the criteria before reaching a conclusion. It should separate:

• official information: a provider’s current published facts and terms;
• independent testing or research: evidence with an identifiable method;
• editorial judgment: a conclusion based on stated criteria; and
• not verified: facts the available research does not establish.

The Site will not say “tested,” “we tried,” “our results” or similar language unless a real test occurred and the article documents the date, sample, procedure and limitations. Desk research should be labeled as research-based or not hands-on.

AI assistance

AI tools may assist with brainstorming, outlines, source-discovery questions, organization, editing, formatting and accessibility checks. AI output may contain errors and is not accepted as authority.

AI must not be used to fabricate:

• quotations or statistics;
• professional credentials or named reviewers;
• personal use, testing, travel, interviews or clinical experience;
• image ownership, licenses or releases;
• sources that were not opened and checked; or
• consumer testimonials, case outcomes or commercial relationships.

The publisher is responsible for deciding whether an AI-assisted draft is ready to publish. Material AI assistance should be disclosed in an editorial note or method statement. No article should describe itself as “human reviewed,” “medically reviewed” or “legally reviewed” unless that review actually occurred and the reviewer can be identified and verified.

Originality and duplication

Articles should use an original structure and wording tailored to the reader decision. We do not copy another site’s article, translate it to avoid attribution, lightly rewrite it or combine passages from multiple pages into a derivative summary. Short quotations should be limited, necessary, attributed and linked.

Repetitive templates, near-duplicate local pages and bulk articles created only by swapping a city, brand or keyword should not be published.

Dates, updates and stale content

Core articles show a reviewed date and a sources-and-method section. A revision date should change only when the content was actually rechecked or materially updated. Time-sensitive comparisons should state when prices and terms were checked.

When an article becomes unreliable, it may be updated, set to draft or redirected through an appropriate technical process. Old content is not republished from trash merely to increase article count.

Corrections

Readers may report errors through the Contact page. A useful report includes the article URL, exact claim and supporting source.

For a substantive error, the publisher should:

1. check the cited and proposed sources;
2. correct the text, table, title or disclosure;
3. update the review date when a material re-review occurred; and
4. add a correction note when the original error could materially affect a reader’s decision.

Minor spelling, grammar and formatting corrections may be made without a correction note.

Advertising and independence

Advertising should be clearly separated from editorial content and labeled only with a clear term such as “Advertisement” or “Sponsored Links.” Ads should not appear as article cards, download buttons, menu items or editorial recommendations. Advertisers do not receive advance approval of unrelated editorial conclusions.

Material sponsorships, affiliate relationships, free products or paid travel must be disclosed close to the relevant claim. No such relationship should be implied when it does not exist.

Images and accessibility

Each published image should have a documented creator, original source, license or ownership basis, acquisition or generation date and material modifications. Unknown provenance is not repaired by inventing an attribution. The image should be replaced or removed unless evidence is found.

Images need descriptive alt text when they convey information; decorative images should use empty alt text where the theme supports it. Captions and alt text should not imply a real patient, tested product or visited location when the image is illustrative.

Feedback

Questions about this policy or a specific editorial decision may be submitted through the Contact page.