Editorial and corrections policy
On a topic that can affect a business decision, the process behind the content should be visible.
Who writes and reviews
Pages that explain legal-adjacent concepts carry a byline and, where available, a named reviewer with real credentials. We do not invent authors, headshots or qualifications. In practice the whole site is maintained by one person, who also built the data pipeline and answers the corrections inbox. No page here claims an external expert review that did not happen, and no reviewer is named in order to look authoritative.
How the content is produced
Search results are generated mechanically from the USPTO bulk-data index described in the methodology; they are not written or hand-edited. Explanatory pages are drafted with automation assistance and reviewed by a person before publication; automation is never the sole author of a page that gives guidance.
Dates shown on pages reflect real substantive changes. We do not refresh dates to make content appear newer than it is.
Why the content exists
These pages exist to help someone understand what the search does and does not tell them - primarily to prevent over-reliance on a similarity score. They are not written to capture search traffic, and we do not mass-produce topical pages without adding real data.
Corrections
If a status classification, date or explanation is wrong, send the serial number, the URL and the official TSDR record. We will check it against the source and either correct the mapping or note the discrepancy visibly. Substantive corrections update the page's modified date.
Send corrections to Disankyo2008@gmail.com. Every substantive correction updates the page's modified date, so a fix is visible rather than silent.
Sources we rely on
Primary references are USPTO materials: the status-code definition list, TM5 status standards, the TSDR record system and the bulk-data products. We link to the official record for every result rather than asking you to take our word for it.