Source Methodology And Corrections

Direct answer

HypeBasis prefers official or primary sources, records accessed dates, shows last reviewed dates on evergreen pages, and treats high-risk pages as monthly-review content. If a claim becomes stale or unsupported, the page should be corrected, marked unverified, or have the claim removed.

Source priority

• Official protocol or venue documentation.
• Public legal terms, risk disclosures, fee pages, and help-center policy pages.
• Regulator, exchange, or established education sources for traditional product mechanics.
• Public API responses for live-data fields, with stale and fallback states shown in the UI.
• Third-party technical docs only when they document an endpoint shape or tooling behavior that official docs do not cover clearly.

Correction workflow

• Identify the affected claim, page, source, and risk level.
• Check the official or primary source again before rewriting the claim.
• If the claim cannot be verified, remove it or label it as unverified instead of softening it into ambiguity.
• Update the page copy, last reviewed date, source block, and any tests or shared data that enforce the claim.
• Add a decision note to the relevant active plan when the correction changes scope, monetization, jurisdiction handling, or product interpretation.

What gets downgraded or removed

• A fee, referral, restriction, or protocol claim with no official or primary-source support.
• A jurisdiction statement that encourages signups, deposits, trading, or workarounds where access is restricted.
• A calculator or data explanation that hides major assumptions such as fees, spread, liquidity, funding, settlement, or stale data.
• A comparison claim that relies on old fee tables, old access rules, or unsupported marketing language.