Last reviewed May 9, 2026 Written by Antonia Moosmann

Who, how, and why

Every substantive page should make it obvious who wrote it, how I put it together, and why it exists for the person reading. For psychology-adjacent topics, that means plain sourcing, clear boundaries around medical advice, visible update notes, and no inflated outcome claims.

Editorial standard

Every page should answer a real reader decision, avoid inflated claims, and show what evidence supports the recommendation. I keep first-hand testing, public research, product documentation, third-party reporting, and editorial judgment as separate categories so the reader can tell which is which.

Mental-health boundaries

I don't diagnose, promise outcomes, or describe any product as a cure. Therapy-adjacent tools can help some people in some contexts, but they can also be the wrong fit. Each page says who should skip the tool and when a professional or urgent support route may be more appropriate.

Corrections and updates

I show the date of material updates when pricing, availability, features, or safety information changes. If I find an error, I correct it and add a note when the change matters for the reader.

AI assistance

I use AI tools to help organize research, compare notes, draft outlines, and check consistency. AI does not replace my editorial judgment, source review, or first-hand checks — and I take out unsupported claims before anything goes up.

Money and the editorial

Some links on the site earn me a small commission if a reader buys through them. That arrangement does not determine what I recommend. Every review here should still help with the decision if every commercial link were removed.