Warconomy writes cautiously by rule: prefer associative phrasing over causal claims, treat prices as benchmarks not verdicts, state as-of and review dates rather than implying real-time, acknowledge partial coverage, label sample rows, and stay within an economic-impact (not legal) scope. These rules are enforced by the sitewide no-overclaim audit.
- Associative, not causal.
- As-of/review dates, never real-time.
- Partial coverage; sample rows labeled.
Association, not causation
Prefer: "associated with", "tracked alongside", "may reflect many factors"
Avoid: "caused by", "because of", "driven by" (unless the cited source says so)
Benchmarks, not verdicts
Prefer: "market benchmark", "source-reported value"
Avoid: framing a price move as proof of an event's impact
Freshness honesty
Prefer: "as of <date>", "reviewed <date>", "a re-check is recommended"
Avoid: "real-time", "live tracking", "up to the minute"
Coverage honesty
Prefer: "partial coverage", "does not claim complete coverage"
Avoid: "complete", "comprehensive", "every" (unqualified)
Sample labeling
Prefer: clearly mark sample rows as illustrative
Avoid: presenting sample/placeholder figures as current data
Scope honesty
Prefer: "an economic-impact reference"
Avoid: "legal advice", "compliance guidance"
Enforcement
These rules are checked by the no-overclaim audit in npm run audit:data. See the methodology and the compatibility policy.