Actionable Feedback Policy

At SQ Magazine, our mission is to provide clear answers and transparent reviews in a cluttered digital world. Whether we are breaking down the latest AI statistics or stress-testing a new SaaS tool, accuracy is our code.

Because technology evolves quickly and data changes over time, this policy explains how readers can help us identify issues and how we review, verify, and correct our content to maintain the highest standard of integrity.

What Constitutes “Actionable Feedback”?

We value all reader input, but to ensure our editorial team can act swiftly and effectively, we prioritize feedback that directly impacts the accuracy, reliability, or transparency of our content.

We consider the following to be actionable:

Statistical Errors: Incorrect percentages, market cap figures, or outdated data points in our industry reports.
Technical Inaccuracies: Wrong software specifications, incorrect code snippets, or misstated compatibility requirements (e.g., claiming an app is iOS-only when an Android version exists).
Review Bias & Disclosure: Concerns regarding undisclosed affiliate links, unlabeled sponsored content, or conflicts of interest that are not clearly disclosed to readers.
Misleading Headlines: Titles that do not accurately reflect the technical reality or the data presented in the article.
Attribution Issues: Uncited data sources or failure to credit original research.

Note: General disagreements with a reviewer’s opinion (for example, “I think this software is better than you said”) are welcome in our comments section, but are not considered actionable policy issues unless they involve factual inaccuracies.

How to Submit a Report

To file a report, please use our Contact Page or email our editorial team directly at media@sqmagazine.co.uk.

For your report to be processed efficiently, please include:

The URL of the article in question.
The specific text or data point you believe is incorrect.
The Correction: What the text should say.
Proof: A link to the primary source (official documentation, original study, or release notes) that verifies the error.

Intake & Triage Process

We treat content errors like software bugs. They are prioritized based on severity.

Critical Priority (Typically resolved within 24-48 hours): Errors that fundamentally change the conclusion of a review, pose security risks (e.g., bad security advice), or involve serious legal or compliance inaccuracies.
Standard Priority (Resolved within 3-5 business days): Minor statistical typos, broken links, or non-critical factual updates.

Our Verification Protocol

Unlike general news sites, our content often relies on technical testing and data aggregation. Our review process involves:

Editorial Review: A Senior Tech Editor (distinct from the author) reviews the claim.
Data Re-verification: If a statistic is challenged, we cross-reference it against the original whitepaper, API documentation, or company filings.
Technical Testing: If a software feature is disputed, we may re-test the specific function in our lab environment to verify the claim.

Resolution & Transparency

We believe in transparent, public accountability. If we make a mistake, we acknowledge it and correct it.

Correction: For clear factual errors, we will fix the text and append a correction note at the bottom of the article detailing what was changed, when the correction was made, and preserving the original publication date.
Update: If software has been patched or features have changed since publication, we will add an “Update” tag to the header to reflect the new version.
Retraction: In rare cases where a review is fundamentally flawed or data is found to be unreliable, we will retract the piece with a full explanation.
No Change: If our review finds the content to be accurate, we will reply to you explaining our findings.

Appeal Process

If you believe we closed your ticket without resolving the issue, you may request a Secondary Review. Please reply to our decision email with the subject line “Appeal: [Article Title]” and provide additional context or new evidence that we may have missed.

Abuse of Policy

We reserve the right, at our discretion, to disregard automated spam, abusive language, or bad-faith attempts to manipulate our review scores through organized feedback campaigns.