Our policy for any AI company profile containing a critical or potentially damaging claim is straightforward and non-negotiable: the company gets a meaningful opportunity to respond before publication, with enough specific detail about the claim to actually respond substantively, not a vague, last-minute heads-up designed to satisfy the letter of the policy without its spirit.
What a meaningful opportunity actually requires
Reaching out with enough lead time that a response is genuinely possible, being specific about what claim is being made rather than a general "we're working on a story about your company," and giving real consideration to whatever response comes back rather than treating the outreach as a formality to check off before publishing what was already planned.
Why we hold this line even when it costs us speed
A critical claim published without a genuine chance to respond is fundamentally less fair and less complete than the same claim published alongside the subject's own account, even when that account doesn't change our overall assessment. This isn't about protecting companies from scrutiny; it's about making sure our scrutiny is well-informed by the full picture.
What happens when a company doesn't respond
We publish and note the lack of response, having made a genuine, documented attempt to secure one. A company's choice not to engage doesn't obligate us to delay indefinitely, but it does obligate us to have actually tried, with enough specificity and lead time that the non-response reflects a real choice rather than an unfair process.
Why this standard matters on this beat specifically
AI companies operate in a fast-moving, high-stakes environment where reputational claims can meaningfully affect funding, hiring, and customer trust. Getting this process right matters more, not less, because of how much can ride on a single profile.