Editorial Policy

Editorial review here focuses on formula clarity, input and output consistency, page intent, language accuracy, and whether the explanation on the page still matches the calculator behavior.

If a page explains a formula, limit, or assumption, that explanation should match the actual output and should not contradict the model described elsewhere on the site.

Pages may be updated when a formula needs clarification, an example needs improvement, wording gets too vague, internal linking breaks, or user feedback uncovers a factual or presentation issue.

Not every update changes the model itself. Some are editorial only and exist to improve interpretation, readability, or structure.

English and Chinese pages are expected to follow the same calculation logic even when the wording is adapted to local search habits or language conventions. Literal equivalence is not the goal.

The standard is whether both pages communicate the same model, the same boundaries, and the same intended use.

If a factual error, formula inconsistency, broken link, or misleading explanation is identified, the issue should be reviewed and corrected as appropriate.

Priority goes to anything that could materially change interpretation, calculation logic, or user understanding.

Editorial review does not mean the site can certify future market behavior, guarantee accuracy under every condition, or replace market-specific professional advice.

Review improves clarity and consistency. It does not remove uncertainty from investing.