Editorial standards for sourced, reviewable watch content.
Maison Montres content should distinguish verified fact, attributed claim, observation, estimate, inference, opinion and unknown information. Material statements should point to the strongest available source and carry an appropriate review date.
AI-assisted drafting may support the writing process, but it is not a source. A human reviewer must assess the underlying evidence and approve the published text. Commercial interests and engagement-specific conflicts must remain visible.
Use the strongest source for the fact it can establish.
| Level | Examples | Editorial use |
|---|---|---|
| Primary record | Manufacturer document, official filing, court or regulator material, original policy, signed document or direct inspection record. | Preferred for the fact the record directly establishes; scope and date still matter. |
| Specialist secondary source | Reputable scholarship, recognised reference work, documented catalogue or reporting that cites its evidence. | Useful for context, comparison and interpretation; check against primary material where available. |
| Market evidence | Completed transaction, public auction result, dealer offer, current listing or market dataset. | Label the source, date, currency, condition and whether it is a transaction or asking price. |
| Attributed first-party claim | Brand, seller, adviser, auction house, service provider or Maison Montres statement about itself. | Attribute it and do not present it as independent confirmation. |
| Unverified input | Anonymous statement, recollection, forum post, unsourced listing or AI-generated assertion. | Use as a lead to investigate, not as proof of a material fact. |
Source quality is question-specific. A manufacturer can confirm its current policy but may not provide an independent market value. An auction result can show a recorded sale but may not prove originality, net proceeds or a wider price trend.
Tell the reader what kind of statement they are reading.
Verified fact identifies a source that directly supports the statement. Attributed claim names the person or organisation making it. Observed states what was seen under a defined inspection. Estimate includes its basis, date and assumptions.
Inference is a reasoned conclusion drawn from named evidence and is labelled as such. Opinion is clearly presented as judgement. Unknown, not verified and not examined keep gaps visible rather than converting them into certainty.
Descriptions such as rare, original, important, investment-grade, best, safe or independent require definition and evidence. When the evidence does not support the word, remove it or qualify it.
Use tools for drafting, not as factual authority.
AI-assisted tools may support outlining, simplification, table structure, comparison, consistency checks and draft editing. They must not be cited as the source of a material claim.
A human reviewer must open and assess the underlying sources, verify names, dates, numbers, quotations and claims, reconcile conflicts, label inference and approve the final copy. Citations should lead to the source that supports the statement, not to a search result or invented reference.
AI output must not create a person, credential, membership, office, client, case, quote, transaction, guarantee, fee, timeline or source. If a claim cannot be verified, it is removed, attributed or labelled as unresolved.
Do not manufacture independence.
Maison Montres publishes information about services it may offer. That is a commercial interest and should be clear when a page discusses a decision that could lead to an engagement.
Independence is not created by calling a report independent, by not holding inventory or by using an external specialist. It depends on the person, assignment, instructions, compensation, relationships and conflicts. Any claim of independence must define those conditions and be supported for that engagement.
Editorial content should distinguish an educational guide from a service page. Links to Maison Montres services should not turn a general comparison into a disguised claim that one route is always best.
A date should show a real source review.
A substantive page should state when it was published and when its factual sources were last reviewed. A formatting, spelling or layout change should not imply that time-sensitive claims were rechecked.
Market values, fees, people, roles, credentials, policies, law, tax, insurance, availability and service terms can change. These statements should carry an as-of date, source and review trigger appropriate to their volatility.
When a material conclusion changes, the page should update its review date and add a correction or version note where the earlier statement could affect a reader's decision. Archived evidence or an internal change record should support the revision.
Correct the claim and preserve the reason.
A correction request should identify the page, exact statement, proposed correction and strongest available source. Send it to contact@maisonmontres.com or use the contact form.
The reviewer should check the source, examine related pages and decide whether to correct, qualify, remove or retain the statement. A material correction should explain what changed and update the appropriate review date. A challenge is not rejected merely because it concerns commercial copy.
If the evidence remains conflicting, the page should state the uncertainty rather than select the most favourable version.
Five profiles show how we limit a claim to the available record.
These profiles use public auction records, official brand material, published interviews or documented campaign relationships. They do not claim to show a person’s complete current collection or a private valuation.
Sources, AI review and corrections, plainly defined.
Published certainty should never exceed the available evidence.
Which sources receive the most weight?
Primary sources receive the most weight for a fact they directly establish. These can include manufacturer records, official filings, court or regulator material, signed transaction documents and the original policy or standard. Specialist secondary sources can add context but do not replace a stronger primary source.
How does Maison Montres use AI in editorial work?
AI-assisted tools may support outlining, simplification, comparison and copy checks. A human reviewer must open and assess the underlying sources, verify material claims, distinguish fact from inference and approve the final text. AI output is not treated as a factual source.
How are facts, estimates and inference distinguished?
A factual statement should be tied to a source and review date. An estimate states its basis, date and assumptions. An inference is labelled and explains the evidence behind it. Attributed claims identify the speaker or publisher, and unresolved points remain unknown or unverified.
Does Maison Montres describe its content or advice as independent?
Not as a blanket claim. Maison Montres publishes commercial information about its own services, so that interest should be clear. Independence is specific to a person, assignment, compensation structure and conflict review; it should be claimed only when defined and supported.
How are corrections, versions and review dates handled?
A material factual correction should identify what changed, update the review date and add a correction or version note where the earlier statement could matter to readers. Formatting-only edits should not imply a new factual review. Time-sensitive information should carry an as-of date and be rechecked before reuse.