Last updated: 19 August 2026
This page explains how InnovateTechie decides what to publish, how we research and check it, how we handle mistakes, and where the money comes from. It is the standard we hold ourselves to, and the standard you can hold us to.
What we publish, and for whom
InnovateTechie covers one subject properly rather than many badly: Claude and the Anthropic toolkit — the models, Claude Code, the API, pricing and plans, features, comparisons with other assistants, and the errors people actually hit.
We write for the person who has a job to do. That means guides that get to the point, state their assumptions, and finish the task — not overviews that restate a product page.
Who writes and edits
Every article is written and edited by Edith, our editor. There is no anonymous contributor pool, no rotating freelancer bench, and no syndicated filler. Every post carries the same byline and links back to the author page, so you always know who is accountable for what you are reading.
We are independent. InnovateTechie is not affiliated with, sponsored by, or endorsed by Anthropic, Google, or any other company we write about, and no vendor sees an article before it publishes.
How we choose topics
Topics come from three places: questions readers send us through the contact page, problems we hit ourselves while using these tools, and gaps we find where the existing answers are wrong, out of date, or paywalled.
We do not publish an article because a keyword looks profitable and the subject happens to be adjacent. If we cannot say something useful and specific about a topic, we do not cover it.
How we research and verify
- We run what we write about. Setup steps, terminal commands, and code samples are executed on a real machine before publication. Where behaviour depends on a specific version, plan tier, or operating system, we say which one we tested.
- We check claims against primary sources. Model names, context limits, pricing, and feature availability are verified against Anthropic's own documentation and pricing pages at the time of writing, and we link out so you can check for yourself rather than taking our word for it.
- We mark what we could not confirm. Where something is undocumented, inconsistent, or varies by account, we say so plainly instead of filling the gap with a confident guess.
- We show our working. Screenshots, command output, and error messages in our guides are from real runs, not mock-ups.
Use of AI in producing this site
We write about AI tools, and we use them. Being straight about how is part of the standard:
- AI assists with drafting, outlining, and editing. It does not decide what we publish or what we conclude.
- Every article is reviewed, edited, and fact-checked by a human before it goes live, and a human is accountable for it afterwards.
- Technical claims, commands, code, and figures are verified against a real run or a primary source regardless of how the draft was produced. AI output is treated as a first draft to be checked, never as a source.
- We do not mass-publish unreviewed generated pages, and we do not create pages whose purpose is to catch search traffic rather than answer a question.
Corrections and updates
We would rather be corrected than be wrong.
If you find an error, an out-of-date figure, or a step that no longer works, send us the URL and what is wrong through the contact page. We check it, and if it is wrong we fix it.
- Substantive corrections — anything that changes the meaning, the outcome, or a factual claim — are noted on the article. We do not silently rewrite history.
- Routine updates — a new model name, a changed price, a refreshed screenshot — update the article and its revision date.
- Typos and formatting are fixed without a note.
Because Claude changes quickly, guides on fast-moving subjects such as pricing, model lineups, and usage limits are revisited as those things move. An article that states the version or date it was tested is telling you the boundary of what we verified.
Advertising, affiliates, and independence
InnovateTechie is free to read and funded by advertising.
- Advertising is clearly distinguishable from editorial content, and advertisers have no input into what we cover, what we recommend, or how we rate anything. No article is written, altered, or withdrawn because of an advertiser.
- Where an article contains an affiliate link — a link that may earn us a commission if you buy — that is disclosed in the article itself. An affiliate relationship never changes our verdict.
- We do not publish paid or sponsored guest posts, and we do not sell links or placements. Pitches offering payment for either get no reply.
- We do not accept payment to review a product, and we do not give a vendor copy approval.
If any of this ever changes, this page changes with it, before the practice does.
Recommendations and comparisons
When we recommend one tool over another, we say what we compared, on what basis, and who each option suits. We will say when a product is not worth the money, when a cheaper option is good enough, and when the honest answer is that it depends.
The commercial terms attached to a product play no part in where it lands in a comparison.
Reader privacy
What we collect from you and what advertising means for your data are set out in full in our Privacy Policy. The short version: we do not sell your personal information.
Contact
Corrections, questions about this policy, or anything else: use the contact page or email [email protected]. We read everything and reply to most things within one to two business days.