How we work
Review
Technique guides are checked against practice by someone who cuts hair. Where a guide describes how a cut is built, the sequence and the guard lengths are reviewed before publication, not after.
Evidence
Claims about hair biology are checked against published research. Where the evidence is thin, contested, or rests mainly on convention, the page says so. We would rather leave a question open than close it with a confident sentence that is not supported.
Figures such as growth rate, shrinkage and upkeep intervals are presented as typical ranges. Individual variation is real and often large.
Corrections
When we get something wrong we fix the piece, date the correction, and leave the original claim visible so the change is legible. Corrections are not silent edits.
Review schedule
Technique guides are re-checked every twelve months. Pages that depend on research are re-checked whenever significant new evidence appears. Every guide carries its published and updated dates.
Commercial relationships
We take no payment in exchange for a favourable assessment. Where a link earns a commission, it is marked on the page carrying it. No product appears here that we have not used or read the research on.
Images
Photographs are either original or licensed. Where a cut is shown, the caption describes what is actually visible rather than implying specifications we cannot verify.