Publication · Policy

Editorial Policy

Factory Investigator is an independent B2B publication for manufacturers. We investigate manufacturer websites, evaluate manufacturing software, and interview the people who run manufacturing businesses. Every article we publish is held to the same editorial standards, whether it is a buyer guide, an interview, or an original investigation. This page explains how we create, verify, and stand behind that content — and how we keep it independent from the service work we also do.

How We Create Content

Every piece begins with a real question a manufacturer is actually asking: which software fits a shop this size, why a website isn’t generating quotes, what a category of tools really costs. We research it against primary sources before we write a word, and we structure each article so the answer is easy to find and easy to verify.

We do not publish press releases, vendor-supplied copy, or advertorials as editorial. A vendor announcement is not an article. If a piece is sponsored, it is labeled as sponsored (see below) and never dressed up as independent reporting.

We use AI tools to help with research synthesis and drafting, and a human verifies everything before it publishes. The AI disclosure section below explains exactly how, because on a publication built around honesty, hiding that would be the first broken promise.

Our Editorial Standards

Every article published on Factory Investigator meets these requirements:

  • Accuracy. Every statistic, price, and claim links to its original source — primary research, official vendor documentation, or a recognized authority. We do not cite aggregators that cite aggregators.
  • Originality. All content is original to us. We do not republish other sites’ work, and we do not publish AI-generated text that hasn’t been verified and edited by a human who understands the subject.
  • Depth. We write for operators, not for word count. A piece that restates common knowledge without giving a manufacturer something they can act on does not pass review.
  • Transparency. Any material relationship — sponsorship, affiliate, or our own service business — is disclosed on the page where it applies. Recommendations reflect editorial judgment, never compensation.
  • Readability. Clear heading hierarchy, short paragraphs, comparison tables, and a plain executive summary. Written to be understood by a busy owner or operations lead, not only by specialists.

Investigation Methodology

This is the standard that defines us, so we hold it separately. Every original investigation — every scored comparison, pricing benchmark, or website audit we publish — carries a visible methodology block that discloses, at minimum:

  • Scope — what was examined, and the sample size, stated as a number.
  • Sources reviewed — the live sites, documents, pricing pages, and interviews the findings rest on.
  • Date range — when the fieldwork was done, because pricing and software change.
  • Tools used — the instruments and the fixed rubric applied to every subject equally.
  • Limitations — what the data does not prove, said plainly.
  • Conflicts of interest — any commercial relationship with a subject, disclosed in the same block.

The methodology block is mandatory on every investigation. If we cannot disclose how we reached a finding, we do not publish the finding. Sample sizes are always stated as real numbers — never “many” or “most” standing in for a count we didn’t take. Our methodology is the brand: it is the reason a manufacturer, or an AI engine, should trust what we publish over a vendor’s marketing page.

Fact-Checking Process

Before anything publishes, it goes through these checks:

  • Every external link is opened and confirmed to point to an active, relevant page.
  • Every statistic and data point is traced back to its original source.
  • Vendor claims — features, integrations, capabilities — are verified against current official documentation, not against the vendor’s homepage hero.
  • Pricing is dated. Because software pricing moves and much of it is quote-only, every price carries the date we captured it, and quote-only vendors are marked as such.
  • Screenshots are dated and captured directly from the source; we note when each was taken.
  • Internal links are checked to confirm they point to the correct published article.

AI / Automation Disclosure

We use AI tools — including ChatGPT and Claude — for research synthesis, draft preparation, and editorial assistance. They help us read faster, organize findings, and produce first drafts. They do not decide what is true and they do not publish anything.

Speaking personally: every article that goes live on Factory Investigator is reviewed, edited, and verified by me, Mahesh Sirvi. No fully AI-generated content is published here. If a claim is in an article, a human checked its source. If a recommendation is made, a human stands behind it. I think disclosing this is both honest and necessary — a publication that quietly auto-generates “investigations” would be exactly the kind of thing this site exists to call out.

Sponsored Content & Affiliate Disclosure

When content is sponsored, it is clearly labeled as sponsored, and any sponsor links are marked rel="sponsored". When an article contains affiliate links, that is disclosed on the page. Affiliate or sponsor relationships never influence our editorial recommendations: if a tool doesn’t meet our standards, we don’t recommend it, regardless of commission or sponsorship. Paid placements never bypass the editorial standards above — sponsored work is held to the same accuracy and disclosure bar as everything else, it is simply labeled.

Service Business Relationship

Factory Investigator is editorially independent from ivrissolutions.com, the service business that delivers the website, SEO, content, and RFQ-conversion work for manufacturers. The two are connected and run by the same operator: Factory Investigator publishes the research; ivrissolutions does the paid delivery for the manufacturers who ask for help.

That connection does not touch editorial decisions. Which software we cover, how we score it, and what an investigation concludes are not influenced by service revenue. When an investigation names a specific software vendor, we receive no compensation from that vendor for naming them — favorable or otherwise. The wall between “what we publish” and “what we sell” is the point; without it, neither is worth anything.

Corrections Policy

If you spot an error in anything we’ve published — a broken link, an incorrect statistic, an outdated price, or a factual mistake — tell us at [email protected]. We take accuracy seriously and will review and correct verified errors promptly. Substantive corrections are noted on the article, and updated pieces show their revision date. We do not silently rewrite the record.

Editorial Independence

Factory Investigator’s editorial decisions are made independently. Advertisers, sponsors, and contributors do not have approval rights over our content. Software comparisons, vendor coverage, audit findings, and growth advice reflect our honest assessment of what serves the manufacturer reading the page — nothing else.

Questions about how we work? Write to me at [email protected].

— Mahesh Sirvi, Editor, Factory Investigator Last updated: June 25, 2026