Editorial methodology
How FanBriefer turns a wide watch into useful reporting.
Our tools help us search broadly. Our published work must still identify the evidence, explain the context, and distinguish facts from interpretation.1. Wide discovery
Four specialized watches cover screen and comics, anime and manga, video games and tabletop, and conventions and fan culture. They check official channels, specialist reporting, direct statements, multilingual sources, major fandoms, and less obvious discoveries.
A lead is not a story. Every lead is retained with its source, date, discovery path, and proposed decision so omissions and rejections can be examined.
2. Verification
The daily editor merges duplicate leads into real-world developments and opens every source used in publication. Official statements, credible reporting, traceable rumors, and FanBriefer analysis carry different labels.
We state what a source establishes and preserve important unknowns. An inaccessible report requires independent corroboration or an explicit escalation; a search excerpt is not treated as verified evidence.
3. Two levels of coverage
Developments that need explanation become standalone articles. They establish what changed, the prior context, the consequence for fans, the limits of the evidence, and what to watch next.
Smaller but useful developments remain in the daily brief. They still need an identifiable fandom, a concrete change, sufficient context, and a direct reason to matter. We do not turn every product listing or promotional post into news.
4. Artificial intelligence
FanBriefer uses artificial intelligence tools for discovery, comparison, drafting, translation, and consistency checks. Automation does not make a claim true and is never presented as a source.
Published facts must be supported by the linked evidence. The bilingual versions must describe the same development with the same status, taxonomy, score, and sources. FanBriefer remains responsible for the final published content.
5. Independent review
A separate review checks freshness, sources, wording, context, duplicate coverage, taxonomy, scoring, bilingual parity, and technical validity. The reviewer may correct or remove material when the evidence permits.
Publication is authorized only after the reviewed files pass their checks and match the approved versions. A failed material check leaves the previous edition online.
6. Corrections
Material errors are corrected in both languages. When a correction changes how a reader understands the development, the article or brief receives an update marker and explains the new state.
Questions and correction reports can be sent to contact@fanbriefer.com. Advertising and sponsored material, if any, remain separate from editorial decisions and are identified clearly.