Editorial Policy

This policy describes the standards for new and corrected coverage. It does not certify that every article in the archive already meets those standards.

Sources and verification

Articles should identify the records and sources supporting material claims, distinguish a source's statement from an established fact, and give the relevant publication or effective dates. For regulatory questions, official Tennessee sources should take priority over summaries from providers or other publications.

A company website can support an attributed description of what the company advertises. It cannot, by itself, verify service quality, current insurance, client satisfaction, or a comparative price advantage.

Interviews, site visits, quote comparisons, and service tests should be described only when supporting records exist. When an update is based on public documents rather than firsthand work, that limitation should be clear.

Older profiles and ratings

Some older company profiles contain numeric ratings and descriptions of field reviews, interviews, and licensing checks for which supporting records have not yet been verified. Those assessments are under review. Do not treat them as verified current service assessments, customer-rating aggregates, or certifications of a company's credentials.

The previous description of a uniform, completed review process and an equal-weight scoring formula has been withdrawn pending verification. A corrected rating would need a documented method, dated evidence, and a clear explanation of what was measured. Changing a number without that evidence would not validate it.

Before hiring a provider, check current registration with TDCI, request current insurance documentation, and obtain references relevant to the proposed assignment.

Editorial attribution

Current editorial work uses the TN Security Review Editorial Team byline. Historical byline archives do not authenticate the previously published biographies; those unverified credential claims have been removed.

Independence

This is the part that matters most. We don't accept payment from any security company we review. Not for placement, not for higher ratings, not for "featured" listings. Our revenue comes from display advertising and downloadable buyer guides.

Our editorial team has full control over what gets published and what ratings companies receive. Advertisers have zero influence over review content. If a company offers us money for a better rating, we'll decline and note it in our files.

Corrections

Readers can send a correction request with the article URL, the disputed claim, and supporting information. Corrections should identify material changes and the date they were published. Original publication dates should be preserved, and a later update must not be presented as reporting completed at an earlier time.

Where evidence does not support a claim, the correction should remove or qualify that claim. A general disclaimer does not substitute for correcting the affected article.