Editorial Policy

The rules we hold ourselves to.

This page sets out who writes for The Silicon Scroll, where our information comes from, what we are and are not able to claim, how we use AI tools, and what happens when we get something wrong. It is a working document, not a marketing statement — if we break a rule on this page, you are entitled to hold us to it.

Policy details

Version
1.0
Effective from
18 September 2026
Last reviewed
18 September 2026
Applies to
All content on thesiliconscroll.com
Policy owner
Sameer Patel, Publisher

Who is accountable

The Silicon Scroll is published by KCS Global Group and produced by a seven-person editorial team. Editorial decisions are made by that team alone. No advertiser, affiliate partner, or manufacturer has any say in what we publish, how we rate a product, or whether an article stays up.

Every article carries the name of the person who wrote it and a last-updated date. A second member of the team checks the article’s factual claims against its sources before it goes live. Where a piece has been substantially revised after publication, we say what changed.

Final responsibility for everything on this site rests with the publisher, Sameer Patel. If you believe an article breaches this policy, write to him at contact@thesiliconscroll.com.

You can read more about the team on our about page.

What we can and cannot claim

This is the most important section on the page, and the one most sites in our field leave out.

The Silicon Scroll does not operate a hardware testing laboratory. We do not own most of the components we write about. We do not run our own benchmark suite, take our own thermal or acoustic measurements, or photograph parts on our own bench.

Nothing on this site should be read as a first-hand, hands-on review unless an article explicitly says a member of our team used the product personally — and if it does, it will name that person and describe the conditions.

What we produce instead is documentary research: gathering what manufacturers, standards bodies, and independent testers have published, verifying it against each other, and translating it into an answer to the question you actually have.

We think that work is genuinely valuable, and we would rather be honest about its limits than imply a lab we do not have. It also means you should treat our articles as a well-sourced starting point for a buying decision, not as a substitute for a hands-on review from an outlet that owns the hardware. Where such a review exists, we link to it.

Language we do not use

  • “We tested”, “we benchmarked”, “in our testing”, or “on our test bench” — unless we actually did, in which case the conditions are stated.
  • “Hands-on” or “first impressions” for a product no one on the team has handled.
  • Manufacturer press renders or stock photography presented as our own photographs.
  • Invented scores, star ratings, or measurement figures that no source supports.

Our source hierarchy

Not all sources carry equal weight. When sources conflict, the higher tier wins, and we say in the article that there was a conflict rather than quietly picking the more convenient number.

Tier 1

Standards and primary specifications

Published standards from JEDEC, PCI-SIG, and the USB Implementers Forum; manufacturer technical briefs, datasheets, chipset block diagrams, and official specification databases such as Intel ARK. These define what a thing is.

Tier 2

Manufacturer support material

CPU support lists, memory qualified vendor lists, BIOS release notes, official clearance and dimension drawings, and warranty documentation. Authoritative on compatibility, but written by a party with an interest in the answer.

Tier 3

Independent measurement

Benchmark results and teardowns from established review outlets that own and test the hardware, plus maintained community databases such as the TechPowerUp GPU Database. We attribute every figure we take from these and link to the original.

Tier 4

Owner reports

Recurring problems described by people who own the hardware — firmware faults, failure patterns, RMA experiences. Useful as a signal worth investigating, never as proof. When we cite these we label them plainly as owner reports rather than as findings.

Not used

Marketing copy and unattributed aggregation

Product landing pages, press releases, sponsored posts, AI-generated listicles with no sourcing, and retailer descriptions. We read them; we do not treat them as evidence of anything except what a company would like you to believe.

How an article is made

Every piece on this site goes through the same sequence. No article skips a step because it is short or because a deadline is close.

  1. Define the reader’s actual question

    We start from a real decision someone is trying to make, not from a keyword. If we cannot state the question in one sentence, we do not write the article.

  2. Gather primary documentation

    Specifications, standards, and support material are collected and recorded with their source URLs before any writing starts.

  3. Cross-check against independent measurement

    Vendor claims are compared against published third-party results. Discrepancies are noted in the draft, not smoothed over.

  4. Verify compatibility against real constraints

    Socket and chipset support, BIOS requirements, physical clearances in millimetres, power connectors, and case dimensions are checked against the manufacturer’s own listings.

  5. Write, with every claim traceable

    Each factual statement in the draft maps to a recorded source. Anything that cannot be traced is cut or clearly marked as our judgement rather than fact.

  6. Independent review before publication

    A second team member re-checks the claims against the sources, confirms no prohibited language has crept in, and confirms all affiliate links are disclosed.

  7. Publish with a byline and a date

    The article goes live with a named author, a named reviewer where relevant, and the date it was last verified.

How we use AI tools

We use AI tools in parts of our production process, and we would rather tell you exactly how than leave you guessing.

What AI is used for

  • Organising and summarising research we have already gathered from named sources.
  • Producing first drafts from an outline and a source set that a human has assembled.
  • Editing work: tightening sentences, fixing grammar, improving structure and readability.
  • Generating candidate questions a reader might have, which a human then decides whether to answer.

What AI is never used for

  • Supplying facts. Every specification, figure, and compatibility claim comes from a source a human has opened and read. We do not publish a number because a model produced it.
  • Deciding what we recommend. Rankings and recommendations are human judgements.
  • Publishing without review. No article reaches this site without a named human checking it against the sources and taking responsibility for it.
  • Producing volume for its own sake. We do not mass-generate articles to chase search traffic.

Google’s position is that appropriate use of AI is not against its guidelines — the problem is content produced primarily to manipulate rankings, without editorial oversight. Its guidance asks publishers to be clear about who created content, how it was created, and why. This section, together with the two above it, is our answer.

A named human author is accountable for the accuracy of every article on this site, whatever tools were involved in producing it.

How we make recommendations

When we name a best pick or rank components against each other, the criteria are stated in the article itself — performance at a given price, compatibility breadth, power draw, noise, warranty terms, and availability. We do not use a hidden scoring formula.

Because we do not test hardware ourselves, our recommendations are built from documented specifications and independent measurement, weighted by the use case the article is written for. A recommendation for a budget gaming build weighs different things than one for a workstation, and we say which we are optimising for.

Prices move constantly. Any price in an article was accurate on the last-verified date shown and should be treated as a reference point, not a quote.

Money and independence

This site is funded by display advertising and affiliate commissions. Neither buys influence over what we write.

  • We do not publish guest posts, sponsored articles, or paid placements of any kind.
  • We do not sell links, insert links into published articles for payment, or take part in link exchanges.
  • No manufacturer can pay to appear in a comparison, a list, or a recommendation.
  • Affiliate commissions never change a ranking. Where a product we recommend has no affiliate programme, we still recommend it.
  • Advertising is sold and served separately from editorial. Advertisers see no article before publication.
  • Full details of how affiliate links work are on our affiliate disclosure page.

Corrections

We will get things wrong. Specifications change, manufacturers revise support lists, and we make mistakes of our own. What matters is what happens next.

If you find an error, email contact@thesiliconscroll.com with the article URL and, if you have one, the source showing the correct information. Correction reports are the first thing we open.

What we do with a report

  • We acknowledge the report, normally within two to three business days.
  • We check the claim against the original source and, where needed, a higher-tier source.
  • If we were wrong, we fix the article and update its last-verified date.
  • Where the error was material — a wrong compatibility claim, a wrong measurement, a wrong recommendation — we add a dated correction note to the article saying what was changed and when. We do not quietly edit and move on.
  • If we were right, we reply explaining the source our claim rests on.
  • Articles are never deleted to make an error disappear.

Updates and freshness

Hardware coverage goes stale quickly. We revisit articles when a relevant product generation launches, a platform’s support list changes, a firmware update alters behaviour we described, or a recommendation is discontinued.

The date on an article is the date its facts were last verified, not the date a word was last touched. We do not change dates to look fresh in search results — that practice misleads readers and we will not use it.

Where an article covers a product that is now discontinued or superseded, we say so at the top rather than leaving you to work it out.

Complaints and right of reply

If you are a manufacturer or retailer and believe we have published something inaccurate about your product, write to info@thesiliconscroll.com with the specific claim and the evidence that contradicts it. We will review it against our source hierarchy and correct the article if the evidence supports it.

We will not remove or soften an accurate, sourced statement on request. Better evidence changes articles here; commercial pressure does not.

For anything outside editorial — privacy requests, copyright notices, or questions about our terms — see our contact page.

Home About Contact Affiliate Disclosure Disclaimer Privacy Policy Terms of Service