Methodology & Editorial Standards
Every MI Reports title is built the same way: real research, drafted with AI assistance, checked against real sources, and reviewed by a person before it's ever delivered. This page explains exactly how — not because we're required to, but because a report you can't audit isn't worth citing.
How a report is built. Research for each section is conducted against real, disclosed sources — company and industry disclosures, trade-association data, primary interviews, and named market-research publications — with AI assistance used to accelerate drafting, never to originate an unsourced claim. Every figure in the report is classified honestly: whether it's a directly reported number, an independent analytical judgment, or a modeled estimate — and which is which is disclosed in the report's own Methodology section, not hidden behind a single "source" footnote.
How it's checked before publication. Every report passes through a human editorial review before it's considered finished — someone other than the original researcher reviews the finished report end to end for accuracy, clarity, and consistency (see Human Review, below).
How it's checked again before it reaches you. Before any report is delivered to a customer, a second, independent verification pass re-checks every factual claim against its original source (see Fact Verification, below) — a deliberate, separate step from the review above, performed close to the moment of delivery rather than only at initial publication.
When we've been wrong. In one internal case, a factual detail — a date and a company name used to illustrate a market trend — was found to be inaccurate during later research on a different report. It was corrected before that report was ever delivered to a customer, and the correction, including how it was found, is recorded in our own internal documentation. We're describing this not because it's unusual, but because a research process that never admits an error is one you should be more skeptical of, not less.
What none of this is, yet. This verification process is performed by people, not software. We don't yet have an automated system that continuously re-checks published claims against live sources — that's real, planned future work, not something you should assume is already running in the background.
Fact Verification
Before any report is delivered, every factual claim it contains — every figure, every citation, every named example — is checked again, directly against its original source, by someone who did not write the original research.
Concretely, this means: confirming the cited source still exists and still says what the report says it says; checking that every number in the report is internally consistent with every other number derived from it; and requiring a named, dated sign-off from that independent reviewer before delivery proceeds.
This is a manual process, performed by a person, every time.It is not an automated scan, and we don't want to imply otherwise. It is also not a guarantee against every possible error — it is the specific discipline we've put in place because we know, from real experience, that research errors happen, and that catching them before delivery matters more than claiming they never occur.
Human Review
Every report is reviewed by a person before it's considered finished — not only for factual accuracy (that's a separate step, described in Fact Verification, above), but for whether the finished report actually reads and presents correctly: is every exhibit legible, does every page say what it's supposed to say, does the narrative hold together across sections.
This review happens against the real, finished report — not a draft, not a description of what the report will contain. If something reads wrong, looks wrong, or doesn't hold up on inspection, it's fixed before anyone outside MI Reports sees it.
As with fact verification, this review is performed by a person, every time. It is not an automated quality check.
If Something's Wrong
Tell us. We'll investigate every reported concern directly against the original source, and if it's warranted, we'll correct the report and redeliver it to you at no additional cost.
We aim to acknowledge any reported concern within one business day. Investigation and correction timelines depend on what's being checked, but we'll tell you honestly what to expect once we understand the issue — not leave you waiting without an update.
We don't offer refunds, because we'd rather fix a real problem than keep money for a report that didn't do its job. If we get something wrong, our commitment is to fix it, tell you what happened, and use it to make the verification process better.