Primary sources first
Technical claims begin with the exact manufacturer record; regional price and warranty may use an authorized seller.
Independence standard
Editorial policy
The independence, sourcing, authorship, review, commercial-separation, and correction rules behind Espresso Receipt recommendations.
The promise
Espresso Receipt exists to make a constrained buying decision legible. We publish the budget, fit, workflow, source, and modeling assumptions that can change an answer. A recommendation must be able to stand without a commercial relationship, and a commercial relationship cannot repair a weak fit.
Publishing rules
Claims match evidence
Specification, modeled, observed, measured, and unresolved are different states and must remain visibly different.
Commercial separation
Commission rate, merchant availability, and sponsorship are not recommendation score inputs.
Conflicts stay visible
Variant conflicts and missing measurements are preserved as caveats instead of filled with convenient guesses.
No synthetic experience
We do not write first-person testing language without a documented physical test of the exact product.
Dates mean something
Checked dates attach to source inspection; updated dates attach to editorial review. Neither guarantees a current retail offer.
Editorial workflow
- Define the user question and the facts needed to answer it.
- Resolve the exact U.S. product variant and collect direct sources.
- Normalize units without changing the source meaning.
- Separate hard constraints from subjective or modeled preferences.
- Review every claim against its evidence class and add material limitations.
- Publish source and update dates, then revise under the corrections policy.
Automation and human accountability
Software may help normalize product records, run formulas, find internal inconsistencies, and format drafts. It cannot create a product fact or firsthand observation. A published claim remains Espresso Receipt's responsibility and must trace to a listed source, disclosed model, or documented test.
Review and corrections
Brands may submit objective corrections with a public source. They do not receive editorial approval or a promise that requested language will be used. Readers can report an error through the corrections page. Material changes are logged there when they could have changed a recommendation, cost, fit decision, or safety-relevant understanding.