The rules the desk operates by.
Sourcing, prediction archive, conflicts of interest, and the update policy — all in one place. Read before challenging a published piece.
Sourcing rules
We cite the tournament's official channel, the team or player's verified social profile, or a primary news outlet with a byline. We do not cite aggregator sites or anonymous leaks as primary sources. Where multiple primary sources conflict, the desk notes the conflict and uses the source closest to the event — typically the team's official channel, then the tournament's official channel, then a primary news outlet with a byline.
Aggregator sites are never used as primary sources. If a piece of reporting depends on an aggregator, we say so plainly and the desk's confidence in that piece is reduced accordingly.
Prediction archive
Every prediction we publish is archived at the same URL with the original timestamp and wording preserved. When the fixture ends, we publish a post-match review that cites the original wording and names whether the scenario played out. That archive is the desk's accountability surface — readers can audit any call we have ever made.
We do not publish a hit rate over the archive because the metric would mislead readers. The archive is for auditing individual calls, not for generating a leaderboard.
Conflicts of interest
Desk members do not have financial exposure to any fantasy cricket operator, team, or tournament. The publication does not accept payment for coverage, does not run sponsored picks, and does not link to operators in exchange for compensation. Where a desk member has a personal connection to a player, team, or tournament that could affect coverage, the connection is disclosed on the relevant article.
Reader subscriptions fund the publication's editorial work. Display advertising funds the operational infrastructure. The two revenue streams are kept separate in our reporting — advertising does not influence editorial coverage.
Update policy
Once an article is published, the original wording remains in the article. Later updates are appended with a timestamp, not substituted. Material corrections are listed in the public corrections log with a one-line note on what was corrected and why.
Typos and non-material wording changes are fixed silently with an editorial note at the bottom of the article. The corrections log is reserved for material errors.
Reader tips
Anonymous tips are not used as primary sources. If you have information that should be on the record, contact the desk and we will work with you on attribution. Reader-submitted findings on methodology or on patterns we have not flagged are treated as inputs to the relevant hub page.
We do not pay for tips and do not accept paid tips from intermediaries. Where a reader's tip leads to a published piece, the tip is attributed with the reader's consent.
How do you cite sources?
We cite the tournament's official channel, the team's verified social profile, or a primary news outlet with a byline. Inline sourcing is used so the audit chain is visible at the point of the claim.
What counts as a material correction?
A material correction is an error that affects the substantive claim — a wrong squad player listed as in the XI, a wrong role attributed to a player, a wrong fixture date. Typos and non-material wording changes are not material corrections.
Can I challenge a published piece?
Yes. Route the challenge via the contact page. We respond within 48 hours and publish the response if it changes the substance of the piece.
Why we publish corrections publicly
We publish corrections publicly because the audit chain is part of the desk's editorial product. A correction that is fixed silently — without an entry in the corrections log — does not allow the reader to verify that the desk caught the error and addressed it. The corrections log is the durable surface for that verification.
The desk's working rule is that a material correction is published within 24 hours of confirmation, and the corrections log is updated when the article is updated. The log is in reverse chronological order; older corrections remain visible so the audit chain is durable.
What we don't publish
The desk does not publish sponsored picks, affiliate-driven coverage, or pieces that name a winner without a sourced conditions rationale. We do not link to operators in exchange for compensation. Where the desk names a player or a tournament, the relevance is editorial, not commercial.
The desk also does not publish content that exposes the website's internal organisation to readers — phrases like 'this page', 'this article', 'our hub', or 'this section' do not appear in the desk's writing. The desk begins each piece with valuable information that matches the page topic.
Why we publish our methodology
The desk publishes its methodology so readers can audit the desk's pattern of coverage. The methodology is the desk's working vocabulary — the framework, the captain-case logic, the conditions-read approach, and the prediction-vs-outcome archive. Readers who want to understand how the desk arrives at a call can read the methodology directly.
The methodology is updated when the underlying approach changes. A methodology change is announced on the editorial policy page and reflected in the relevant guide on the strategy guides hub.
How to challenge a published piece
Readers who want to challenge a published piece can route the challenge via the contact page. The desk responds within 48 hours on working days. Where the challenge is substantive, the desk publishes a response alongside the original piece.
Challenges that affect the substantive claim — a wrong source, a wrong date, a wrong attribution — are material and are noted in the corrections log. Challenges that do not affect the substantive claim are noted in the desk's response but not in the corrections log.
The desk's working standards
The desk's working standards are simple: source every claim, timestamp every piece, archive every prediction, review every result. Each standard is enforced by the editorial workflow — sourcing is checked before publication, timestamps are applied automatically, the prediction archive is the durable surface, and the results desk is the audit mechanism.
The standards are not aspirational — they are operational. A piece that does not meet the standards is not published; a piece that meets the standards is published with the appropriate attribution and timestamp.
How the desk handles guest contributions
The desk handles guest contributions by clearly marking them as guest contributions on the byline. The guest's affiliation is disclosed. The desk does not pay for guest contributions and does not accept paid guest contributions.
Guest contributions are reviewed by the desk's editorial team before publication. The review process is the same as for any other desk piece — sourcing, timestamps, and the methodology are checked before publication.
A note on the desk's working environment
The desk operates as a small editorial team. The team's working environment supports the editorial scope — the team has the time and resources to verify sources, to timestamp predictions, to archive wording, and to review results. The desk does not operate under time pressure that would force a piece to be published before the editorial workflow is complete.
Where the desk faces a trade-off between speed and accuracy, accuracy wins. A late-published piece with verified sourcing is more useful than an early-published piece with unverified claims. The desk's working rule is that the editorial workflow is not bypassed for speed.
A note on the desk's editorial workflow
The desk's editorial workflow is the process by which each piece is reviewed before publication. The workflow includes sourcing, timestamping, archiving, and reviewing. Each step is enforced by the editorial policy; a piece that does not meet the policy is not published.
The workflow is documented on this page. Readers who want to understand how a piece is reviewed before publication can read the workflow section directly.
What the desk's editorial standards look like in practice
The desk's editorial standards look like this in practice: each piece has a sourced claim, a timestamp, an attribution to the desk, and a connection to the desk's published coverage. Where a piece references a statistic, the statistic is anchored to a defined sample and a date range. Where a piece makes a prediction, the prediction is archived verbatim. Where a piece reviews a result, the review cites the original prediction.
Readers who want to verify the standards can compare any piece to the editorial policy page. The comparison should show: sourced claims, timestamps, attribution, and connection to published coverage. Where the comparison shows gaps, the desk publishes a correction.
Why we publish corrections publicly
We publish corrections publicly because the audit chain is part of the desk's editorial product. A correction that is fixed silently — without an entry in the corrections log — does not allow the reader to verify that the desk caught the error and addressed it. The corrections log is the durable surface for that verification.
The desk's working rule is that a material correction is published within 24 hours of confirmation, and the corrections log is updated when the article is updated. The log is in reverse chronological order; older corrections remain visible so the audit chain is durable.
What we don't publish
The desk does not publish sponsored picks, affiliate-driven coverage, or pieces that name a winner without a sourced conditions rationale. We do not link to operators in exchange for compensation. Where the desk names a player or a tournament, the relevance is editorial, not commercial.
The desk also does not publish content that exposes the website's internal organisation to readers — phrases like 'this page', 'this article', 'our hub', or 'this section' do not appear in the desk's writing. The desk begins each piece with valuable information that matches the page topic.
Read our methodology
Sourcing, prediction archive, conflicts of interest, and the update policy — the rules the desk operates by.