How Peekaboo publishes and corrects content.

• Use primary sources for product features, prices, crawler behavior, and platform policies.
• Identify the collection or test date when a claim can change over time.
• Distinguish observed results from estimates, interpretations, and illustrative examples.
• Do not publish customer outcomes without permission and supporting evidence.

Peekaboo competes with some products it may review. That conflict must be disclosed on commercial comparison pages. A review should identify the plan, date, environment, criteria, and first-hand evidence used for the assessment.

Vendor claims are attributed to the vendor. Our conclusions should be reproducible from the evidence shown, and material product changes should be recorded in the article change log.

A named author remains accountable for each article. Automated tools may help organize research or edit drafts, but publication requires human review of factual claims, sources, links, and disclosures.

Substantive corrections should update the visible article and its modification date. When a correction changes a conclusion, price, methodology, or customer outcome, the article should explain what changed.

Send correction requests to team@aipeekaboo.com. Include the URL, disputed statement, and supporting source. We review the underlying evidence rather than removing accurate criticism solely at a vendor’s request.