How we write
- Buyer intent first: articles map to procurement questions (match rates, refresh cadence, governance, delivery).
- Primary sources: we cite regulators and standards bodies (FTC, IAB, HHS/HIPAA, ODNI CAI) wherever possible.
- No invented metrics: record counts and coverage claims must match public GSDSI disclosures.
- Actionable structure: key takeaways, scannable subheads, and FAQs for implementation teams.
Accuracy, recency & legal limits
- Informational, not legal advice: Resources content explains how buyers typically diligence datasets and regulatory context. It does not replace counsel or your contracts.
- Law evolves: statutes, FTC/HHS/state AG enforcement, and consent-order obligations change; when we cite a rule or order we link to the authority. Always verify the current official text before relying on compliance framing.
- Market statistics: where articles cite industry spending or survey figures (e.g., trade-association reports), the citation is the attribution. Figures are not GSDSI guarantees unless stated as our inventory.
- LLM / GEO surfaces:
llms.txtandllms-full.txtinclude quarterly-review stamps and explicit disclaimers so retrieval tools surface proportional, caveat-bearing summaries alongside canonical pages.
Search & citations
Search results and AI overviews increasingly favor cited sources. We publish explicit definitions, checklists, and vendor-evaluation criteria, and keep cluster hubs easy to index with stable URLs and structured data.
Publishing governance
We treat publishing as a governed release process rather than a content calendar. The rules below are enforced automatically where a machine can check them, and left to human judgment where it cannot. This exists for accountability and quality. It is not a claim about search ranking.
- Accountable authorship: every article resolves to an author record. The default byline is our regulatory content team as an organization. A named person is used only when that person genuinely wrote the piece. Contributing to the workflow as an editor, reviewer, or executive does not create a byline, and AI is never listed as an author.
- Review for regulated topics: a compliance, privacy, or risk article shows a reviewer and a review date only when a named person has reviewed and approved it. Until then it makes no review claim, shows no review date, and is marked as general information, not legal advice.
- Disclosed AI assistance: AI-assisted tools may be used in drafting and research organization.
- Sourcing for consequential claims: any statistic, dollar figure, record count, or named regulatory action must carry an external source link, preferably the controlling regulator, statute, standards body, or original research. A link is necessary and not sufficient: it does not by itself prove the source supports the wording, so the wording is checked against the source.
- What automation does not decide: the checks catch missing authors, missing or out-of-date review dates, invalid dates, and unsourced claims. They do not judge whether prose is good, whether a source truly supports a claim, whether legal analysis is correct, or whether a reviewer has the right expertise. There is deliberately no readability score, word-count minimum, or AI-detection heuristic.
- Corrections: when a claim or a citation turns out to be wrong, we fix it everywhere it appears rather than only where it was reported, and dead or superseded source links are re-verified rather than quietly dropped.
Contact
If you’re evaluating a dataset or need clarification on provenance, exclusions, or delivery, contact the GSDSI team and we’ll provide a matched sample or diligence brief.