Editorial Policy

We start with official vendor pages, pricing pages, public product documentation, app marketplace listings, platform API documentation, and hands-on checks where feasible. For Shopify coverage, we verify against official Shopify documentation such as API access scopes and order status page behavior.

For WooCommerce coverage, we verify against current WooCommerce REST API documentation and merchant docs. Claims that change quickly, such as pricing, AI packaging, integration support, and platform permissions, are marked with a checked date or phrased as demo questions.

We do not invent pricing, star ratings, customer stories, benchmarks, or test results.

Tool pages are evaluated against buyer-useful criteria: ecommerce data access, knowledge grounding, channel coverage, handoff quality, pricing transparency, implementation risk, governance, and fit by store type. We prefer a tool entry that says 'skip this if...'

over a flattering paragraph that could apply to any vendor. When a tool is recommended for a use case, the page should explain the mechanism behind that recommendation and the failure mode to watch.

We include tools based on relevance to the topic and usefulness to the reader. Some tools may appear in multiple pages when they are relevant to different use cases.

Inclusion does not mean endorsement, and absence does not mean a tool is poor. Our goal is to help readers build a credible shortlist, then verify fit with their own store data, workflows, compliance needs, and support team.

We distinguish between tested observations, official documentation, vendor claims, and editorial judgment. A tested observation should name the workflow tested.

Official documentation should link to the source. Vendor claims should be phrased as claims unless we can verify them.

Editorial judgment should explain the reasoning and tradeoff. If a page cannot support that distinction, we rewrite it.

We use [Google Search Central's guidance on helpful, reliable, people-first content](https://developers. google.

com/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content) as a quality checklist: clear sourcing, evidence of expertise, useful original analysis, and content that helps a reader complete a task. We also use the [FTC's endorsement guidance](https://consumer.

ftc. gov/business-guidance/resources/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking) as a disclosure guardrail: if a commercial relationship or incentive could affect how readers weigh a recommendation, it should be disclosed clearly.

We review and update content on a rolling basis. High-traffic pages, tool comparison pages, and pricing-sensitive content are reviewed at least quarterly.

Other pages are reviewed at least every six months. The ecommerce tool landscape changes quickly and we prioritize updates where reader impact is highest.

Each page displays a last-updated date so you know when the information was last checked.

If we discover a factual error, we correct it promptly. Readers who spot outdated pricing, inaccurate feature descriptions, broken source links, missing caveats, or unclear separation between tested facts and vendor claims can use the contact page.

Pricing, packaging, AI limits, and integration scope change quickly, so every purchasing decision should be verified directly with the vendor before contract signature.

AI Ecommerce (EcomCX) is editorially independent. We do not have commercial partnerships that determine which tools appear in our content.

If that ever changes for a specific link or page, the relationship must be disclosed in plain language near the recommendation, not hidden in a footer. Our recommendations and evaluations reflect editorial judgment based on available information at the time of writing.