We check factual claims against relevant sources, recalculate the numbers, and make assumptions visible. A review date records that work; it is not a guarantee of accuracy, continuous monitoring or independent expert certification.
What the labels mean
- Fact: A checkable statement tied to evidence with the right date, place, definition and scope.
- Worked example: A calculation using stated inputs. Hypothetical inputs are not described as real transactions or observed data.
- Analysis: Our interpretation of evidence. A plausible mechanism is not proof of a particular cause.
- Opinion: An editorial judgment, including claims that a cost is unfair, absurd or unacceptable.
- Editorial manifesto: Our goals and point of view, not research findings.
How we check an article
- Break it into claims. Include headlines, captions, previews, sidebars and metadata—not just the body.
- Open the evidence. Prefer original data, official specifications, methodological documentation and the underlying research. Search snippets and an AI answer are not final evidence.
- Match the scope. Check units, currency, population, model year, period, and whether a number is an estimate, forecast or observation.
- Recompute. Show the formula, inputs and rounding. Do not confuse percentage points with percent changes or individual prices with an aggregate index.
- Challenge the inference. Important or contested causal claims need corroboration and consideration of alternative explanations. A single study is attributed and bounded, not presented as consensus.
- Keep uncertainty visible. Qualify, remove or explicitly flag a claim that the available evidence does not establish.
Source quality is not decided by a logo alone. An official source may be authoritative about its own measurements but still have limits. A manufacturer's specification does not establish what every owner bought; an agency's explanation of a price mechanism does not prove why one receipt was high.
AI assistance and editorial responsibility
AI assists our research, drafting, arithmetic and review. It can misread a source, miss context or repeat an error. Asking an AI twice is not independent confirmation. The September 26 review checked sources and calculations; it did not include an independent economist or professional fact-checking service.
Editorial responsibility remains with Fuckanomics. These articles are general education and commentary, not personalized financial, tax or legal advice.
Dates and updates
A source-review date says when the listed evidence was checked. It does not make a historical study current, and it does not mean that a source is being watched automatically. Time-sensitive facts should be rechecked before republication. Substantive changes require a new review date and an explanation of the amendment.
Launch-content review · September 26, 2026
The review covered all three published articles and the homepage, About page and article archive available in this MVP. Planned articles and the proposed weekly letter were not treated as completed publications.
| Page | Result |
|---|---|
| Civic fuel-price article | Confirmed trim-specific Honda tank capacities and all calculations. Made the hypothetical U.S.-dollar example prominent; separated affordability opinion from facts; qualified the war-price mechanism. |
| Inflation explainer | Corrected inflation and affordability wording. Added BLS and Federal Reserve sources. Replaced unsupported generalizations with dated, attributed research and explicit limits. |
| Editorial manifesto | Labeled goals, opinion and coined terminology; disclosed AI assistance and the absence of a guarantee. |
| Homepage | Qualified article teasers, labeled the illustration as metaphor, and marked the newsletter as planned. Removed an unverified email-subscription request. |
| About and archive | Clarified the publication's scope, review limits, three available articles and unpublished planned topics. |
Not established: An actual $145 Civic purchase; a current national gas or inflation rate in these evergreen pieces; any specific cause of the hypothetical fuel bill; or a verified newsletter delivery service.
Corrections policy
When a factual mistake changes a reader's understanding, correct the affected text and add a dated note explaining the mistake and amendment. Update related headlines, teasers, calculations and source links as needed. Do not erase a substantive correction from the history. Minor spelling and formatting fixes do not require a correction notice.
When a claim cannot be substantiated, qualify or remove it rather than attaching an unrelated citation. Distinguish a correction of an error from an update reflecting new information.
Submission status: A public corrections inbox is not yet enabled in this MVP. A verified contact channel is a remaining requirement before public launch.
Current correction log
- September 22, 2026 · Civic: Removed the unsupported card-authorization-hold interpretation and rewrote the piece around fuel affordability.
- September 26, 2026 · Civic: Clarified example status, currency, capacity assumptions, model scope and causal limits.
- September 26, 2026 · Inflation: Corrected overbroad claims, added source-backed distinctions and dated research, and recalculated the example.
- September 26, 2026 · Site-wide: Added content labels and review notes, clarified editorial promises and planned topics, and withdrew the unverified newsletter signup.