Reviewed 2026-09-03
Editorial policy and evidence standards
How TechGeek UK writes, reviews, dates, corrects and limits public material about technology delivery, AI and products.
Public operating standard
What we publish
The site may publish service pages, delivery notes, insights, product-direction pages, policies, entity information and first-party build records. Each format has a different evidence boundary. A service page explains a type of work that may be assessed. An insight explains a practical decision or constraint. A build record describes work TechGeek controls. A product page may describe a direction and should not silently become evidence of availability, adoption or outcome.
For topics where a primary public source is useful—such as UK data protection, AI assurance or accessibility—we link to the relevant official guidance where possible. A source is cited for context, not as an endorsement of TechGeek, a client project or a particular configuration. Readers should check the source directly because official guidance, provider terms and regulation can change.
Public operating standard
Review and author accountability
Public material is reviewed as TechGeek first-party content. Insights show publication or update information and identify the founder perspective where that is relevant. The founder page distinguishes self-published professional experience from verified company claims. That distinction matters: an historic assignment, a product image or a public company record cannot be used to imply a current client relationship, a customer result or a certification.
Before publishing or strengthening a commercial claim, the intended wording should be matched to evidence and the qualification needed to keep it accurate. Delivery targets require scope, feasibility, access, decision speed, capacity and budget to remain visible. Security, residency, supplier, partner and compliance language requires project-specific evidence and approval. A missing evidence pack is a reason to narrow or remove a claim, not a reason to decorate it with confidence.
Public operating standard
Sources, dates and versions
Pages that materially change should carry an updated date in their content or metadata. First-party records state their publication and update dates. Public identifiers are linked to the official register where a direct source exists and their provenance is described when it does not. The site does not claim that a crawler, a schema field, an AI answer engine or a backlink establishes the truth of a statement.
When a source is incomplete, unavailable, owner-supplied or not independently verified, the wording should say so. For example, an ICO registration is a registration, a UKPRN is an identifier and a Dun & Bradstreet reference held in correspondence is not a public credit or endorsement claim. This approach can make a page less promotional, but it makes the evidence boundary clearer for buyers and answer systems.
Public operating standard
Corrections, changes and removal
If a factual error, out-of-date statement, broken source link or unclear claim is identified, TechGeek will review it and correct, qualify, remove or annotate the relevant material where appropriate. A correction should not silently turn an unsupported claim into a new unsupported one. Where a material change affects the meaning of a page, the page update date should change and the replacement wording should preserve the evidence boundary.
Requests for corrections can be sent to karan@techgeekuk.com with the page URL, the specific statement, the reason it may be inaccurate and, where available, a reliable source. This route is not a guarantee that a third party’s preferred wording will be published. It is a route to assess factual accuracy, provenance, permission and relevance.
Evidence boundary
What this page does not ask you to infer.
- 01
Public editorial content is general information, not legal, regulatory, security, procurement, financial or medical advice.
- 02
No generated text, product image, company identifier or search-engine appearance is treated as evidence of a customer result or a certification.
- 03
Claims about clients, outcomes, partnerships, standards, products or supplier settings require explicit evidence and, where relevant, permission before publication.
Direct answers
Questions buyers ask before the work starts
01Who reviews TechGeek’s public content?
It is reviewed as TechGeek first-party content. Where a founder perspective is relevant, the site identifies that boundary rather than presenting it as independent verification.
02Are insights independent advice?
No. They are practical editorial material for discussion and should not replace specialist legal, regulatory, security, data-protection or procurement advice.
03How are delivery timelines described?
As conditional targets for qualifying work, with the scope, feasibility, access, decision, capacity and budget conditions made clear. They are not universal guarantees.
04How can I request a correction?
Email karan@techgeekuk.com with the page, statement, reason and any reliable source. The request will be reviewed for accuracy, provenance and context.
05Why do some pages state limitations so explicitly?
A limitation tells a reader what the available evidence does and does not establish. It prevents a first-party build record or product direction from being mistaken for a client outcome, certification or availability promise.
06Can we reuse content from this website?
Website content and design are owned by, licensed to or used with permission by TechGeek UK. Reuse beyond applicable law requires prior written permission; see the website terms.
Source discipline
Primary guidance and technical references
A practical next step
Found something that needs correction?
Point to the page, statement and supporting source. Material corrections are reviewed and the public record is updated where the evidence requires it.
Send a correction