Editorial and Medical Review Policy
How SanYuan Herbs decides what can be written, which evidence supports it, when specialist review is needed, and how material errors are corrected.
Chinese botanical culture, product facts, safety guidance and modern research do not all need the same evidence or reviewer. Our governing principle is simple: the evidence and review scope must match the claim.
The Short Answer
“The evidence must match the claim.” A historical source supports history; a regulator supports regulatory status; research supports a research summary; and a current label, BOM, specification or live system supports a current product or commerce fact.
Policy Commitments vs Operational Facts
The policy can state standards SanYuan commits to. It should not pretend that a named reviewer, fixed review cadence, response SLA or correction log already exists when the operating record has not yet been supplied.
Policy Commitments
- match evidence to the claim;
- separate Traditional Context, Modern Research and Product Facts;
- use specialist review when topic/risk calls for it;
- verify AI-generated citations and factual output;
- correct material errors transparently;
- keep commercial CTAs separate from evidence conclusions.
Operational Facts
- named author/editor/reviewer;
- specific credentials and review scope;
- review date and page version;
- fixed review cycle;
- correction response target;
- affiliate/sponsorship status;
- actual correction/retraction log.
These are displayed only from current verified records.
What This Policy Covers—and What It Does Not Replace
P045 governs editorial decision-making. Product quality evidence, legal information boundaries, expert identity and privacy each keep their own canonical owner.
Editorial Process
Sources, claim wording, bylines, review triggers, AI assistance, updates, corrections and conflicts.
Quality & Product Evidence
Supplier, batch, COA, testing, sourcing and manufacturing/quality evidence belong to Quality & Sourcing / Testing & Evidence.
Wellness Disclaimer
The boundary between general information, individualized medical advice and disease claims belongs to the Wellness Information Disclaimer.
Person Profiles
Verified qualifications, roles and affiliations belong to canonical author/founder/advisor profiles.
Privacy
Contact, correction-form and AI data handling belongs to the Privacy Policy.
AI Methodology
Model/version, methodology, validation, confidence and bias belong to the AI Assessment Methodology page.
Who Creates and Reviews Content?
Author, editor, fact checker and specialist reviewer are different functions. One person may perform more than one lower-risk function, but the page should not imply expertise outside the verified scope.
Builds the Content
Prepares the page and identifies evidence needed for factual statements. Bylines link to verified profiles where appropriate.
Controls Structure & Claim Wording
Checks clarity, sources, internal consistency, canonical ownership and whether a query/traditional statement/research finding was upgraded into a product claim.
Checks the Source-to-Statement Link
Verifies the source exists, is current, actually supports the wording and that current product facts have not gone stale.
Reviews a Defined Scope
May review botanical identity, clinical safety, moxibustion, devices, regulatory status, AI methodology or product testing. “Expert reviewed” without scope is not enough.
The Source Must Fit the Question
We do not use one universal evidence pyramid for every statement. Traditional context, regulatory status, product formula and current price are different questions with different source owners.
Traditional Context, Modern Research & Product Facts
A cultural or historical statement is not “weak research.” It is a different evidence category. Problems occur when one category is silently converted into another.
Historical use, terminology, cultural practice, historical texts and traditional classifications. Meaningful as cultural context; not modern clinical proof.
Study type, subject/population, intervention/material, findings, uncertainty and limitations. Ingredient research is not silently turned into finished-product efficacy.
Current ingredients, caffeine status, model, material, instructions, warnings, price, stock and shipping eligibility. Current product records win over old drafts.
When Specialist Review Is Triggered
Not every page needs medical review. Review type follows the subject and the consequence of getting it wrong.
AI Can Assist the Workflow. It Cannot Approve the Truth.
AI assistance does not lower the evidence standard and does not replace human verification for sensitive claims.
AI Is Not a Source
An AI answer cannot prove a health, regulatory, historical, product or credential fact. The underlying source is checked.
Citations Are Verified
Existence, title/author, version and support for the exact statement are checked before publication.
AI Does Not Approve Claims
Efficacy, safety, disease, regulatory status and reviewer credentials still pass the normal human gate.
Translation Must Preserve Claim Strength
“May” must not become “will”; “traditional use” must not become “proven treatment.”
AI Imagery Is Not Evidence
Illustrative images cannot impersonate a real lab test, factory, expert portrait, product photograph or clinical outcome.
No Scaled Thin Publishing
New pages still need distinct intent, canonical ownership, real information gain and reviewable evidence.
Live Facts Beat Old Drafts
Price, stock, SKU, formula, caffeine, model, warranty, shipping, returns, MOQ, samples and market availability are current-state facts. They should not be inherited from a stale content draft.
Updates, Corrections & Retractions
These are different actions. A meaningful correction should be traceable; a retraction is reserved for a materially unreliable or unsafe page/conclusion that ordinary editing cannot responsibly fix.
Something Changed
New label, safety guidance, research, regulation, test or expert role. The previous version was not necessarily wrong.
A Material Error Existed
Wrong species/specification, unsupported source, incorrect title, stale policy fact or claim strength. Record what changed, date, reason and support.
The Page/Conclusion Is Not Defensible
Materially unreliable evidence, wrong identity, serious misrepresentation or unresolved safety/regulatory defect may require replacement, redirect, notice or noindex.
Commercial Relationships Do Not Upgrade Evidence
SanYuan Herbs sells products. The editorial policy therefore separates commercial relationships from evidence conclusions rather than pretending no conflict can exist.
Own Products
Product relationships should be visible. A CTA does not strengthen a research conclusion.
Affiliate / Sponsored / Gifted
Disclose relationships when they actually exist and are relevant. Do not publish an affiliate/sponsor status that has not been verified.
Reviewer Relationships
Founder, employee, advisor, contractor or consultant relationships should not be hidden when relevant. “Independent” is used only when independence is established.
Review & Correction Record
This module can publish real policy owners, page reviews or correction events once records exist. It intentionally renders nothing as “completed” from placeholders.
Only publicVerified records are eligible.
Frequently Asked Questions
Short answers to how the policy is intended to work.
Does every page receive medical review?
No. Review type should match the topic and risk. Cultural/editorial pages do not automatically need medical review.
How are sources selected?
The source must match the claim: regulators for regulatory facts, appropriate research for modern evidence, historical/traditional sources for tradition, and current product systems for current product facts.
Are traditional uses the same as proven benefits?
No. Traditional Context and Modern Research are separate evidence categories.
Does traditional use prove a SanYuan product works?
No. A finished-product conclusion needs product- and claim-appropriate evidence.
Is AI used in content creation?
AI may assist research organization, drafting, restructuring, translation and QA. AI is not treated as evidence, and citations and sensitive factual claims still require verification.
Can AI approve a medical or product claim?
No. AI assistance does not replace the evidence and human review gate.
How often is content reviewed?
Review is risk-based and event-triggered. A fixed schedule is published only when the operational schedule is verified.
How can I request a correction?
Use the Contact page and provide the page URL, the statement, what appears wrong and a supporting source if available.
Does selling a product affect editorial conclusions?
Commercial interest should not upgrade the evidence conclusion. Product CTAs and evidence summaries remain distinct.
What does “Reviewed by” mean?
It should mean a real person or organization reviewed the stated scope. The reviewer and scope should be visible when applicable.
Are institutional affiliations endorsements?
No. Education, employment, association or an advisory role does not by itself mean an institution endorses SanYuan Herbs.
Can a disclaimer make an unsupported treatment claim acceptable?
No. The claim itself must be appropriate, supportable and lawful for the exact product and market.