1. Product documentation, not individualized advice
Method pages explain software behavior: inputs, equations, source priority, missing-data rules, correction paths and limitations. Guides can explain a general tracking practice. Neither format diagnoses a condition, prescribes a treatment or recommends a personal calorie target.
When a question depends on a person's symptoms, diagnosis, medication, treatment or clinical interpretation, the content points back to a qualified professional or verified source.
2. Sources close to the claim
We prefer primary research, systematic reviews, official guidance and first-party technical documentation. A source must support the specific nearby statement; a long reference list does not make an unrelated claim reliable.
- Product calculations are checked against the shipped implementation.
- Connected-device behavior is checked against first-party documentation and the integration code.
- Health-adjacent statements should be limited, qualified and supported by an appropriate source.
- A citation never turns an estimate into a measurement or a population finding into a personal conclusion.
3. Uncertainty belongs beside the output
Approximate meal nutrition, wearable-reported energy and profile-based energy expenditure are labeled as estimates. We explain what can change the number and what the input cannot reveal. Missing information stays missing rather than becoming an invented zero.
Examples use synthetic data and illustrate a workflow, not an ideal meal, target or health outcome.
4. Authorship and review are stated honestly
Current pages are maintained by the KnowsYou product team. We do not attach invented clinicians, dietitians, affiliations or review credentials to content. A named professional reviewer will appear only after that person has actually reviewed the relevant content and agreed to attribution.
No named clinical or nutrition reviewer is currently published for these pages. Content that would cross from product education into individualized health guidance should not be published without appropriate qualified review.
5. AI-assisted drafting does not replace accountability
AI tools can help organize or edit draft language, but they do not count as a source or a reviewer. Published claims should be checked against the product and the cited material. The product team remains responsible for deciding what appears on the site.
6. Dates, method changes and corrections
Guides and method pages carry publication or review dates. When a user-visible calculation changes, its method page should change in the same release. Substantive corrections should update the review date and the affected explanation rather than being silently hidden.
Existing users can report a suspected product or content error through the signed-in app. The agent can report a missing capability or problem when its feedback channel is available and will indicate whether delivery succeeded. See Contact for the current routes.
7. Commercial and legal review remain separate
Editorial review does not replace legal, privacy, regulatory or medical-device assessment. The privacy notice and terms for the limited preview should receive market-specific legal review before commercial launch.
Start with the calculation methods, the guide library or the safety boundaries.