Evidence and sourcing
We prefer the source closest to a claim. For law and policy, that means statutes, regulations, and the responsible public body. For historical claims, it means primary documents supported by reputable scholarship. For a tradition’s teachings, we identify the text, school, lineage, practitioner, or community being described. A broad label can cover many distinct voices.
Sources appear in links, notes, captions, or a bibliography according to the form of the story. Readers should be able to follow a material claim to the source that supports it through a specific link or note.
We use search results, summaries, snippets, and generated answers only to locate underlying material, which we open and assess. When reliable sources disagree, we describe the disagreement or narrow the claim.
How we describe claims
Our stories distinguish among:
- Documented facts, such as a law, date, artifact, or recorded event.
- Scholarly interpretations, which may be debated or revised.
- Claims within a tradition, attributed to the tradition that makes them.
- Contemporary practice, which may differ by teacher, school, place, or community.
- Editorial synthesis, where The Time We Enter draws a comparison or conclusion from the evidence.
We avoid deterministic claims about health, safety, finances, or the future. We keep symbolic and interpretive material separate from medical, legal, and financial advice.
Making careful comparisons
We compare traditions only when the comparison improves the answer and each can be explained with enough context to be meaningful.
Before comparing, we identify the relevant period, geography, terminology, and school or practice. Shared words or diagrams need further evidence before we infer a common origin, function, or meaning. We keep meaningful differences visible.
We explain each tradition in its own context. Contemporary practitioners appear as part of the living traditions they practice.
Review, conflicts, and disclosure
Before publication, we verify material claims against their cited sources and review each story for scope, context, translation, and disclosure. When a named specialist contributes to or reviews a story, we identify their role.
Relevant financial, product, personal, or institutional relationships are disclosed where a reader would reasonably want to know about them. The publication is made by the team behind Birthprint. If a story links to Birthprint, we explain the connection in the story.
Use of AI
AI tools may help us find leads, organize research, draft, and edit. Every factual claim still has to come from underlying source material. We never present a generated quotation as authentic.
We verify dates, names, quotations, and technical claims directly. When an AI-produced image or translation could affect how a reader understands the work, we label it.
Language and translation
We retain original-language terms when translation would erase an important distinction. Transliteration system, translator, and edition are named where they matter. When wording carries interpretive weight, we rely on an identified human translation and explain our choice.
We avoid language that exoticizes a practice, freezes a culture in the past, or turns a described pattern into an essential identity. Broad terms such as “Chinese astrology” or “Western astrology” are narrowed when the evidence concerns a more particular body of practice.
Images, diagrams, and rights
Captions state what an image or diagram shows. Credits and rights information accompany editorial media. A diagram that compares systems preserves meaningful differences between them. Informative images receive useful text alternatives.
Corrections and updates
We correct material errors transparently. A correction or substantive update is dated and described on the story. Minor spelling, punctuation, formatting, or link repairs may be made silently when the meaning stays the same.
To report a possible error, email corrections@thetimeweenter.com with the story title, disputed passage, explanation, and supporting source. We assess the evidence, update the story when warranted, and preserve the distinction between a correction and a difference of interpretation.
We update these standards when our methods change. Story-specific corrections remain attached to the stories they affect.