Editorial and Corrections Policy

Every article should begin from a real bettor question: what does it mean for a favorite to lead while its spread bet is losing, why did a recommendation change from Watch to Actionable, what happens to a hedge when a line moves before the ticket is confirmed. From that question, the article should identify the exact market involved, explain the relevant live context in plain language, and show concretely how Hold, Watch, a specific protection mode, or a $0 recommendation affects the reader's actual financial position.

Educational pages are written to lead a reader toward informed, independent use of the product rather than to pressure them toward placing another wager. An article that only exists to justify a call to action, without teaching the reader anything they can use on their own, does not meet the bar for publication.

Sports betting language is precise for a reason: a seven-point lead and a -7 spread bet describe two different relationships to risk, and a reader who confuses them will misjudge their own exposure. Any example that depends on this distinction should name the exact market, the exact line, the exact odds, the exact stake, and — when relevant — the exact opposite market being compared against it.

A cash-out offer, in particular, must never be described as profit until the original stake has been subtracted from it. A sportsbook's cash-out screen typically shows a gross figure, and an article that repeats that figure without the subtraction step is teaching a reader to overstate their own position.

A worked example that cannot be checked by hand is not evidence of anything; it is a narrative dressed up as math. The editorial standard requires each example to show its inputs plainly enough that a skeptical reader can redo the arithmetic and either confirm it or flag a discrepancy.

A displayed Guaranteed Profit Opportunity label carries an additional obligation: the example must satisfy the actual qualifying condition — a positive net result on every covered outcome of at least 20% of the original stake — and must state the execution and settlement limitations that apply, rather than presenting the guarantee as unconditional.

Rules, sportsbook terms, product capabilities, and public data all change over time. An article that states a fact tied to a moment in time — a market's typical settlement treatment, a specific sportsbook's void policy, a feature's current behavior — is expected to identify or link its source where practical, so a reader can independently verify it rather than take the claim on faith.

Internal claims about how Parlay Logic AI itself works are held to a stricter standard. They must match the current production methodology, not a description carried over from an earlier version of the product or from marketing copy that predates a change. When the methodology changes, every dependent article is expected to be reviewed for consistency rather than left to drift.

Using drafting tools is not, by itself, a departure from editorial standards. What is not acceptable is unsupported certainty, filler that adds no information, phrasing copied from elsewhere, or pages produced at volume that merely rearrange the same keywords without adding a genuine scenario or a complete calculation. Every published page is expected to contain a useful worked scenario, correct math where relevant, and a direct answer a reader can actually apply to a live decision.

• Claims about product behavior are checked against the current methodology before publication.
• Calculations are independently verified rather than trusted because they look plausible.
• Hypothetical examples are explicitly labeled as hypothetical, never presented as documented results.
• No testimonials, user counts, win rates, or performance statistics are invented or implied.

This last point is treated as a firm boundary rather than a preference. Parlay Logic AI does not publish claims about how many users it has, what results users have achieved, or any performance statistic that has not been independently verified and disclosed with its methodology. An article that needs an invented number to feel persuasive should be rewritten instead.

The corrections process is designed around one principle: a reader who found an error and returns later should be able to see that it was fixed, not wonder whether the page was quietly replaced. The canonical URL for an article is preserved when the subject and search intent remain the same, so links and bookmarks continue to point to the corrected version rather than a dead page.

1. Fix arithmetic, market, settlement, or product-rule errors as soon as they are confirmed.
2. Update the visible modification date whenever a change materially affects the answer.
3. Preserve the canonical URL when the subject and search intent remain the same.
4. Add a visible correction note when an earlier error could have materially changed a reader's understanding.
5. Remove or redirect a page when it duplicates or contradicts a current canonical page.

Readers can report a suspected issue through the available Parlay Logic AI support channel. A useful report includes the page URL, the specific passage in question, and, where possible, the calculation or source that contradicts it. Reports that identify a genuine, material error are prioritized over general feedback about tone or presentation.

Pricing, offers, and any commercial relationship referenced in an article must be described accurately. Promotional language is not permitted to override a risk disclosure, and no article may imply that Parlay Logic AI controls sporting events, guarantees the outcome of an original wager, or ensures that every recommendation will succeed. If a call to action and a risk disclosure ever appear to be in tension on a page, the risk disclosure takes precedence in how the page is written.