How Hurt Advice chooses, cites, and revisits sources

Our source hierarchy

We prefer primary or close-to-primary sources whenever the article makes a legal or factual claim that could affect a reader’s understanding of a case.

• Statutes, regulations, court rules, and official agency materials
• Court opinions, public filings, and other authoritative legal records when relevant
• Government datasets and public safety reports for statistics
• Medical institutions, peer-reviewed sources, and clearly attributable health guidance when medical context is needed
• Insurer materials only when the article clearly identifies them as insurer guidance or policy language

What every citation needs to do

Citations exist to support the claim being made, not just to decorate the article. We want readers and reviewers to be able to trace the key statements quickly.

• Match the legal or factual statement they are supporting
• Use a clear title and working URL
• Include a note when the source needs context or interpretation
• Be revisited when the article is materially updated

How we handle outdated or conflicting sources

Legal and policy information changes, and source quality is not always consistent. When sources conflict, the article should explain the tension or be sent back for revision.

• Broken or stale sources should trigger cleanup or re-review
• Conflicting authority should be acknowledged rather than glossed over
• Unsupported claims should be removed instead of left in place pending a later fix

What we avoid

Source quality is part of trust quality, especially for legal content.

• Unattributed legal claims or copied summaries without source support
• Relying on anonymous forum posts or low-trust summaries for legal guidance
• Using citations that do not actually support the statement they appear next to
• Leaving old deadlines, insurer behavior summaries, or claim guidance live after source changes

What happens when the evidence layer weakens

A strong source policy only matters if it triggers action. When a citation breaks, a statute changes, or a factual claim no longer has solid support, the page should move back into review rather than quietly remain live. That maintenance loop is why this policy connects directly to the legal review process, the editorial standards, and the live blog archive.