PrepDossier editorial policy

People-first usefulness

Every page should help a candidate make a better preparation decision.

We write for the person who must decide what to practice, how to present real evidence, and what to clarify with a recruiter. Pages should answer that need directly before considering search engines, distribution, or product promotion.

We do not stretch a narrow fact into a broad claim to create urgency. If a process varies, the article says so. If the public evidence is too thin, the useful answer may be a recruiter question rather than another paragraph of speculation.

Accuracy and attribution

Company-specific claims need visible support and careful language.

• Prefer the employer's current hiring and role material for official process details.
• Use candidate reports to show repeated patterns and variation, not to guarantee questions.
• Link the source page whenever it can help the reader verify or update the claim.
• Attribute reported pilots and news to the reporting organization rather than presenting them as universal policy.
• Separate factual descriptions from our preparation recommendations.

AI-assisted work

AI can improve coverage and consistency, but it can also produce fluent errors.

PrepDossier may use AI to organize research, compare sources, generate question variations, test page structure, and draft or edit copy. The resulting material is held to the same source and quality rules as any other editorial work.

AI output is not accepted as evidence. Company process claims must be checked against the underlying source. We reject invented quotations, fabricated candidate accounts, unsupported statistics, copied passages, and plausible-sounding details that cannot be verified.

Editorial independence and commercial influence

A purchase does not change what a guide says about an employer or interview format.

PrepDossier earns revenue from its dossier product. Public editorial pages may link to that product when it is relevant, but the commercial relationship does not alter source selection, confidence labels, or conclusions.

Employers do not approve independent guides unless a page explicitly states a collaboration. Receiving feedback or a correction from an employer does not give that employer control over the rest of the article.

What we will not publish

Some material may attract clicks while making candidates less informed or less honest.

• Leaked, stolen, confidential, or access-controlled interview material.
• Exact-question guarantees or claims that memorization can secure an offer.
• Fabricated first-person experience, testimonials, outcomes, or employer endorsements.
• Personal information about interviewers or candidates that is not necessary for preparation.
• Instructions for hiding unapproved live assistance during an assessment.
• Long copied passages that replace original analysis or exceed reasonable quotation.

Updates and review

The update date should mean the material was checked, not merely republished.

High-intent company guides are reviewed when an employer changes its public hiring material, a credible correction is received, or strong evidence suggests the process has materially shifted. Small style edits do not require a correction notice. Changes that affect the reader's understanding of the process, permissions, or source confidence do.