1. Purpose and audience
State who the resource is for, the everyday decision it supports, what it asks the reader to do, and what it cannot determine.
Editorial policy
How guidance earns a place on Nurturevia.
A useful resource needs a clear purpose, bounded claim, source trail, accountable owner, current version, and a way to correct or withdraw it.
This working policy does not prove that every existing page has completed review. A resource may claim authorship or review only when its own version record supports that statement.
Publication standard
Six checks before a sensitive resource is promoted.
2. Source trail
Use sources suited to the claim. Record the source, date accessed, relevant scope, and any important limitation or disagreement.
3. Bounded language
Separate product facts, actions inside an activity, usability findings, and outcome claims. Do not turn one layer into another.
4. Accountable people
Name the content owner. When review is claimed, record the reviewer’s precise scope, relevant qualification fact, permission, conflicts, version, and review date.
5. Production checks
Review accessibility, child safety, privacy, rights and licences, translations, links, structured data, and AI-assisted production where they apply.
6. Version and expiry
Identify the published version, review date, next review trigger, material changes, and the person able to correct or withdraw it.
Risk lanes
More sensitive claims require more independent review.
Green: product facts
Examples include how a board works, what a button does, session length observed in the product, or a clearly labelled creative activity. Facts still need version and accessibility checks.
Amber: family guidance
Everyday caregiver guidance, development-sensitive language, red flags, or professional-role descriptions require an appropriate content owner and scoped review before publication.
Red: health or regulated claims
Assessment, diagnosis, treatment, prevention, clinical outcome, crisis, camera inference, or regulated-use claims remain unpublished until their separate evidence, legal, clinical, safety, and operational gates pass.
Authorship and review
A reviewer is responsible for a named scope, not the whole platform.
A valid review record should show
- The resource URL, title, and exact version.
- The questions or claims within the reviewer’s scope.
- Relevant qualification or role facts and when they were checked.
- Review date, requested changes, and final disposition.
- Financial and non-financial conflicts or outside affiliations.
- Permission to publish the person’s name and contribution.
Independence
Commercial goals do not change the claim standard.
Conflicts and sponsorship
Payment, employment, advisory roles, affiliate relationships, product ownership, research involvement, and other relevant interests should be disclosed beside the applicable contribution. Advertising or partnership cannot buy a conclusion.
AI and translation
Automation may assist drafting or production, but it cannot supply missing expertise, invent sources or reviewers, approve a sensitive claim, or turn an unreviewed translation into equivalent guidance.
Corrections, updates, and withdrawal
Publication is not permanent approval. A resource may be corrected, withdrawn, or replaced when evidence, rights, safety needs, law, reviewer scope, or product behaviour changes.
A material health or safety claim should not be silently rewritten. Its record should identify the affected version, summarize the change and reason, and state whether broader notification was required.