Long row of enterprise workstations on a Kraków technology floor under low dawn light

Section

INSART-EDIT

Editorial charter

Methodology and editorial standards

How the institute selects topics, verifies sources, and keeps published material accurate and useful. It applies to research programs, technology briefings, and compliance and risk notes alike.

Cadence

Programs on scope; briefings on current development.

Day code

1234567

Read the research programs Contact the editorial group

How to read the code

1234567: All seven days carry published material in this cycle.
1234000: Part of the cadence is paused while a source question is settled.
0000000: Nothing published this cycle; the item is withdrawn pending review.

Enterprise server aisle at dawn with racks receding toward a single warm key light

Topic selection

Topics start from a question the Polish market is actually asking. A topic enters a program when two conditions hold: there is enough public evidence to research it, and there is a real audience that needs the answer.

That second condition rules out a lot. A question can be interesting and still have no audience that would act on the answer. The institute does not publish research for its own sake, and a topic that only satisfies curiosity does not earn a program slot.

What qualifies a topic

Public evidence exists that can be checked against primary material.
An audience in Poland has a decision to make and would act on the answer.
The question belongs to a program's scope rather than to a news cycle.
The institute can say something the reader could not assemble alone.

Source verification

Every factual claim in published material is tied to a verifiable source. Where a date, a figure, or a regulatory timeline appears, it is checked against the primary document or the authoritative announcement rather than a secondary summary.

Where the institute cannot verify a claim to that standard, the claim does not appear. This is why some notes are shorter than a reader might expect on a topic: the verified material is what it is, and length follows evidence rather than the other way round.

Verification order

1 Find the primary document or the authoritative announcement for the claim.
2 Read the source in full rather than through a summary of it.
3 Check that dates, figures, and timelines match the source exactly.
4 Drop the claim if it cannot be carried to that standard.

Stating limits

Published material states what the evidence supports and where it stops. If the picture on a question is incomplete, the note says so rather than filling the gap with a confident guess.

That applies to regulatory material in particular. Rules that are still being implemented or interpreted in Poland are labelled as such, because a reader making a decision needs to know how settled the ground is.

Independence from vendors

The institute does not sell software, resell vendor platforms, or take commissions from technology suppliers. No published item is influenced by a commercial relationship with a platform it discusses.

This is a structural constraint, not a claim about good intentions. If the institute sold implementation services, every recommendation would carry a conflict of interest. It does not, so the analysis can say when a widely promoted approach does not hold up.

Review before release

Every item goes through a review pass before it is published. The review checks that factual claims are sourced, that the item's stated scope matches its content, and that limits on the evidence are stated rather than implied.

Review is not a style pass. It is there to catch the cases where a claim has drifted past what the source supports.

Warsaw financial-district towers at dusk viewed through a soft foreground window edge

Publication cadence — research programs publish on a defined scope; briefings and notes publish more frequently

Browse technology briefings

Publication cadence

Research programs publish on a defined cadence tied to their scope. Technology briefings and compliance and risk notes publish more frequently, since they track current developments rather than answering a program's core questions.

Everything published is dated. A dated item tells the reader how current the picture is, which matters more in regulatory and AI-related material than anywhere else.

Output

What it answers

Review

Dating

Day code

Programs

The core question a program set out to answer.

Full editorial review

Dated on release

1234567

Briefings

Current development a reader has to track now.

Full editorial review

Dated on release

1234567

Risk notes

Regulatory ground that is still being settled in Poland.

Full editorial review

Dated on release

1234000

Corrections

A published item that turned out to need fixing.

Logged and reviewed

Dated on revision

0000000

Corrections

When a published item turns out to contain an error, the institute corrects it and notes the correction. Regulatory timelines and technology details both change, and a correction is the honest way to handle that.

Readers who spot an error can report it through the contact page. Reports go to the editorial group, which reviews the item and either corrects the published text or explains why the original reading holds.

Report an error

How a correction is handled

The report is logged against the published item and its source trail.
The claim is re-checked against the primary document or announcement.
The published text is corrected and the correction is noted on the item.
If the source supports the original reading, the item stands as published.

Editorial queries are answered Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM – 6:00 PM, at [email protected].

A hand turning an unmarked page on a compliance review table under a warm desk lamp

What these standards do not cover

The institute's methodology applies to its own published research. It does not extend to how other organisations verify their material, and the institute does not audit third-party claims.

Other organisations' verification

How a vendor, regulator, or consultancy checks its own material is outside this charter. The institute describes its process and leaves theirs to them.
Third-party claim audits

The institute does not certify, rank, or audit claims made by other organisations, and no published note should be read as such a certification.
Citation versus endorsement

Where a note references another organisation's position or a regulatory text, it cites the source rather than endorsing the interpretation.
Advice on a specific decision

Published material explains what the evidence supports. It is not a substitute for legal, procurement, or engineering advice on one organisation's own situation.

Questions readers send

The editorial group answers the same handful of questions most often. If yours is not here, write to the group directly and it will be handled as a query rather than a correction.

Read the compliance and risk notes About the Institute

Why are some notes shorter than the topic deserves?

Length follows verified evidence. Where a claim cannot be carried to the primary source, it is dropped rather than padded, and the note reflects what the evidence actually supports.

Does the institute take vendor funding?

No. The institute does not sell software, resell vendor platforms, or take commissions from technology suppliers, so no published item is influenced by a commercial relationship with a platform it discusses.

How current is a dated note?

Every item carries its release date, and corrections are dated on revision. Regulatory and AI-related material moves fastest, so check the date before you rely on a figure or a timeline.

Can the institute check another organisation's claim?

No. The methodology covers the institute's own published research. Where a note references another organisation's position, it cites the source rather than auditing or endorsing it.

Where do I send a correction?

Send it through the contact page or to [email protected]. Reports go to the editorial group, which re-checks the claim against the source before anything is changed.

Programs