How we check sources
Updated 2026-08-15
KlusQuest checks factual copy against the closest available primary source: Apple for Screen Time behaviour, the product owner for a current feature or price, and a named public or professional body for child-development guidance. A source is linked only to the claim it actually supports.
A source can become stale even when its URL still works. Comparisons and technical pages therefore need a review date, neutral wording and a clear distinction between what the source states and what the editor infers from it.
Turn a clear family agreement into missions children can complete and parents approve.
Plan at a glance
| First check | Read the exact claim and follow its source before relying on it |
| Useful outcome | A parent can tell what is documented, optional or outside our control |
| Boundary | This page does not replace the privacy policy, Apple documentation or professional advice |
A practical checklist
- 1 — Write the exact factual claim before searching for evidence.
- 2 — Choose a first-party, public-authority or named professional source closest to that claim.
- 3 — Check the publication date, jurisdiction, product version and exceptions.
- 4 — Paraphrase within the source boundary and label any inference as an inference.
- 5 — Record the review date and remove the claim when the source no longer supports it.
Example for the first week
Use Apple documentation for Family Controls behaviour and the App Store listing for current KlusQuest product claims.
Common question
Why not use a search result summary as the source?
A summary can omit scope, dates and exceptions. It may help find the source, but the published claim should be checked against the actual primary page.