Editorial & Evidence Standards

sinaestavi.com publishes official biography and product information, first-person narrative, founder essays, media material and source-led public records. Because the publisher is also the subject of much of the site, that relationship is disclosed rather than hidden.

The site does not claim the institutional independence of a newsroom, court, regulator or academic journal. Final responsibility for publication, framing, corrections and the fair use of evidence remains with Sina Estavi.

Content should make clear whether a statement is an official first-party description, Sina Estavi’s recollection or opinion, a finding attributed to a named report, an allegation in a document, independent later context, or an editorial inference.

A quotation records or attributes a statement to the quoted person; its authenticity, completeness and context still require review, and it does not by itself prove that the statement is true. A source link shows provenance; it does not transfer the source’s authority to every conclusion on this site.

• Fact: supported by reliable, identifiable evidence.
• First-person account: what Sina Estavi says he experienced, remembered or believes.
• Reported allegation: a claim attributed to a document, person or publication and not presented as adjudicated fact.
• Context: independently relevant information that must not be treated as proof of a separate disputed event.
• Opinion or inference: interpretation clearly distinguished from the underlying evidence.

Source quality is assessed by proximity, authenticity, independence, expertise, date and whether another reader can inspect or verify the material. Primary documents are preferred where they can lawfully and safely be published.

The normal hierarchy is: official records and original documents; verifiable first-hand evidence; direct, attributable statements; reputable reporting with visible sourcing; specialist analysis; and secondary summaries. A lower-ranked source may still be useful, but its limits should be stated.

• Links should point to the closest available original source, not a circular chain of summaries.
• Dates, authors, publishers and material versions should be recorded where available.
• Anonymous sources are used only when there is a defensible need, their access can be assessed and important claims are corroborated where reasonably possible.
• Broken or removed sources may be replaced with a lawful archive or a clear note explaining the loss of access.

Material factual claims should be checked against the underlying source and, where feasible, a second independent source. Screenshots, recordings and documents are assessed for origin, date, completeness, context and signs of alteration before being relied upon.

Numbers should retain their unit, currency, date, method and relevant limitation. Estimates are labelled as estimates. Nominal value is not presented as realised cash; correlation or later context is not presented as proof of causation.

Where credible sources conflict, the conflict is not silently resolved in favour of the preferred narrative. The disagreement, evidentiary limit or missing reconciliation should be visible.

Serious or potentially damaging allegations must be attributed and described with language proportionate to the evidence. The site should not imply guilt, legal liability or adjudication where none has been established.

Where practical before publication, a person or organisation facing a new material allegation should be given a meaningful opportunity to respond. If a relevant response arrives later, it will be assessed for inclusion, summary, link or correction. Publication of a response does not mean acceptance of every claim it contains.

A right of reply is not a right to control the article, erase supported criticism, demand publication of unlawful material or overwhelm the record with repetitive submissions.

The fact that information is available somewhere online does not automatically make republication necessary or fair. Publication weighs evidentiary value and public interest against privacy, safety, dignity and the risk of disproportionate harm.

Home addresses, identity documents, private contact details, financial access information, intimate or medical material and information about children are withheld or redacted unless there is a strong, lawful and carefully documented reason to publish them. The interests of children receive particular weight.

Sources may be protected where disclosure creates a credible risk. Redaction should conceal sensitive detail without changing the meaning of the evidence.

Product and venture pages are first-party descriptions of work connected to Sina Estavi. Status, availability, role and limitations should be stated accurately; pilots, plans and products in development must not be presented as completed public services.

Financial or market-related material must not promise returns, liquidity, price stability or regulatory status that does not exist. Opinion is not personalised financial, legal or investment advice.

If sponsored, paid, affiliate or materially compensated content is ever published, the relationship will be clearly labelled. Personal or commercial interests that materially affect a public-record article should be disclosed.

AI tools may assist with transcription, translation, drafting, structure, image preparation or quality checks. They are not treated as evidence and do not replace human review of material claims, citations, tone or legal and ethical risk.

Documentary images must not be altered in a way that changes their evidentiary meaning. Illustrative or AI-generated visuals should not be presented as photographs of real events, people or evidence. Material synthetic elements should be disclosed where a reader could otherwise be misled.

English and Persian versions should carry the same substantive meaning. Where an original source exists in only one language, the citation should lead to that original and any translation should preserve uncertainty, attribution and legal status.

Important public-record pages should display publication and review dates. New evidence may be added, but an update must not silently turn an earlier allegation into established fact or erase a material evidentiary conflict.

Errors are handled under the Corrections Policy. Material changes should include a visible note explaining what changed and when; minor typographical or formatting fixes may be made without a formal note.