Representative illustration: a working desk of method diagrams and flow charts, with silhouetted figures at a table and a hospital and legislature rendered beyond them. No real people, institutions or events are depicted.
Representative illustration · not real people, institutions or events.

About the publication

Editorial standards, evidence handling and review

This page explains how the archive is produced and states, in figures taken from the deployed files, where it currently stands.

Three things are set out below: where the archive stands, how a page is produced, and how AI is used and how it is not. Every figure on this page is read from one place, and the same figure reads the same wherever it appears on this site. Figures are recomputed with every publication build; each is marked in the page source with the canonical key it came from, so a mismatch is a build failure rather than a matter of proofreading.

Where the archive stands

Figures as at . Every number on this page, and every corpus number published anywhere on this site, is computed from one canonical calculation — not typed into a template.

427Current articlesPolicy analyses, patient guides, standing trackers and cross-cutting essays, counted from the deployed tree rather than from search-engine indexing.
276Policy analysesAcross 35 policy sections.
137Patient guidesClinical explainers written in plain language, plus one interactive health-information tool counted separately.
142Approved revisionsApproval attaches to the revision reviewed, not to the URL. Where a page has changed substantively since its approval, the current revision is labelled pending and emits no reviewer in both the visible text and the structured data.
107Superseded records preservedThree classes, all preserved. Comparative companions and merged records each carry a canonical to the article that now holds their subject. Dated withdrawn copies stay self-canonical beside the article that replaced them. Every one is kept at its original URL with a record naming its successor, and none is in the sitemap. No URL has been removed.
621Crawlable URLsCanonical URLs offered for crawling, each verified to resolve to a served page. They are listed in the flat sitemap and in exactly one section child; /sitemap.xml is an index over those children rather than a list of URLs. The figure exceeds the article count because section pages, translations and dated weekly issues are included. Superseded records are not: they serve at their own addresses and are deliberately absent here. Nothing is ranked by a sitemap value — priority and change-frequency hints are not emitted at all, because search engines do not use them. Application shells are served but not sitemapped.

These are counts of deployed pages, not of pages indexed by search engines — two different things that are often conflated. Nor is any of them a verification score: a page can be published, reviewed and correctly linked to a statute and still rest on a proposition the statute does not support. Claim-level verification is recorded separately, claim by claim.

Review status, and what it means

Review is recorded per revision, not per page. An article whose current revision has been read and approved by Kanwar Partap Singh Gill, MD names him as reviewer with a review date in both its visible text and its structured data. An article whose current revision post-dates his last approval carries none of that — no approval line, no reviewedBy, no lastReviewed — and shows authorship with a verification date instead. Approval is a single decision taken by a named physician; it is never inferred from a draft, a checklist or an automated process, and it is never extended to text the physician has not read.

Two categories therefore carry no review claim, both deliberately. Superseded records: a page whose only content is the record of its own withdrawal has no article there to review. And articles published since the last approval: an approval covers the text it was given, so a page written or substantively revised afterwards is published without the stamp rather than published under one that would cover words the reviewer has not seen. Read the presence of reviewedBy as the signal, and its absence as accurate rather than accidental. The figure below counts the second category.

Published, pending review of the current revision

472

Objects whose current revision post-dates the standing approval of . Each is readable, cited and linked; none claims a review it has not had. Derived from the record store, not typed.

How a page is produced

  1. Question first. A page exists because a specific question recurs in practice, not because a topic was available.
  2. Primary authority is verified in the session it is cited. Statutes, regulations, cases, agency guidance and clinical guideline bodies are read at source rather than recalled.
  3. Primary authority is preferred for propositions it directly governs. High-quality secondary work — systematic reviews, peer-reviewed literature, legal scholarship and authoritative institutional reports — is used for analysis and context, but does not substitute for readily available controlling authority.
  4. Claims that cannot be checked are withheld. They are logged internally rather than written into the text.
  5. Structured data is designed with the article, not bolted on. The visible citations and the machine-readable ones must agree; nothing exists only in the structured layer.
  6. One approval, by a named human. Fact-check, citation audit and duplication check are preparation, not sign-off. Only Dr. Gill, or an editor he designates, marks a page approved.
  7. Substantive revision returns for review. An approval covers the text it was given, so a page changed in substance is reviewed again — and until that review happens, the revision is published carrying Pending physician review rather than the earlier approval. An approval describes the revision that was actually reviewed and does not transfer to materially changed text.

How AI is used, and how it is not

Used for

  • Research organisation and source retrieval
  • Drafting assistance under editorial direction
  • Building the interface and the corpus index
  • Finding internal inconsistencies and duplication at scale

Never used for

  • Authorship — the author is a named physician
  • Approving a page for publication
  • Supplying a citation from memory
  • Medical advice, diagnosis, or any handling of personal health information

Reporting an error

If a statute has changed, a guideline has been superseded, or a sentence is simply wrong, it should be corrected rather than defended. Use the professional contact form, naming the page and the source that contradicts it. A change to substance is reviewed before it is published, and the page carries its review date.

This form is not a patient-care channel. It is not monitored for emergencies, and it must not be used to send symptoms, medical records or other personal health information. For a medical emergency, call 911 or go to the nearest emergency department.

The corpus is 427 current articles — 276 policy analyses, 137 patient guides, 11 standing trackers and 3 cross-cutting essays — plus 107 superseded records preserved at their own addresses and counted separately: 69 comparative companions, which now carry a canonical to the domestic article that absorbed them, 15 articles merged into a stronger treatment, and 23 dated withdrawn copies retained beside the articles that replaced them. A superseded record is never counted as current, and 514 policy URLs are served in total.