We want you to know exactly how the articles on LaunchSpecs are made, so you can judge how much to trust them. Here is the full process, without euphemism. Every article on this site is reviewed and edited by Jason Paik, who oversees the system described below.
We use AI tools, with layered independent verification
Our drafts are produced with the help of AI writing tools. That draft is never what you read. Every article goes through the following steps before publication:
- Research and draft. A topic is chosen from comparisons people actually search for, and a first draft is generated with an AI writing tool working from a detailed brief built around the products’ published spec sheets.
- Fact-check against sources. Every factual claim in the draft — clock speeds, TDP figures, port counts, memory limits, dimensions, prices at time of writing — is checked against current web sources, with priority given to manufacturer spec sheets and official product pages, chipmaker specification databases, and reputable technical press.
- Correction and editing. Errors found in step 2 are corrected. Claims that could not be verified are either removed or clearly labeled as unverified. Filler is cut.
- Quality review. The article is scored against a rubric covering usefulness, original value, structure, and accuracy. Articles below our threshold are rewritten or discarded rather than published.
- Seven independent reviews. The finished article is then examined by seven separate reviewers covering five areas: reader safety (could following this advice damage hardware or mislead a buyer on something that matters), factual accuracy (key figures are re-checked against live sources a second time), editorial policy (no fabricated testing, no misleading claims), reader value (does it actually answer the question), and technical integrity (broken tables, missing charts, duplicate articles, dead links). Because accuracy and policy failures matter most, those checks are run twice by different AI models — the reviewers deliberately mix models and rule-based code so they don’t share blind spots.
- Publish or hold. Only articles that pass all seven reviews are scheduled for publication. Anything flagged is held for review by Jason Paik, who oversees the system, sets its editorial rules, and handles corrections. If a check fails, the article does not go out.
Where our numbers come from
LaunchSpecs is a spec-sheet publication. Our comparison tables are built from manufacturer spec sheets, official product pages, and chipmaker specification databases — not from hands-on lab testing. We believe honestly organized official data is more useful than pretended benchmarks, and we label manufacturer claims as exactly that.
What we will not do
- We do not fabricate hands-on testing, benchmark runs, or “we measured this” claims. If we did not test it, we do not say we did.
- We do not publish photographs that imply we handled hardware we did not handle. Our illustrations are diagrams and data tables.
- We do not use tools designed to disguise AI-assisted writing. We would rather tell you plainly, as we are doing here.
- We do not publish in a language without an editing pass for that language. A machine translation is not an article.
Limits you should know about
Fact-checking reduces errors; it does not eliminate them. Prices change weekly, manufacturers make silent hardware revisions, and regional SKUs differ. A spec sheet also cannot tell you how loud a fan is under sustained load or how a device behaves after a year. Treat our tables as an accurate snapshot of the published data at the time of writing — and check the manufacturer’s page before you order, because they can change theirs without telling anyone.
Tell us when we’re wrong
Corrections are welcome and we act on them. Reach us through our contact page.