Skip to content
Wealth Analytica logo

Legal

Editorial policy

Wealth Analytica publishes work on regulation, technology and practice operations for UK IFAs. Financial content has consequences for the firms and clients who read it — so we hold our content to standards we'd accept being held to by an FCA reviewer.

Every article on Wealth Analytica is written by a named human author with verifiable credentials and reviewed by a second named author for any topic that touches FCA rules, suitability, or investment selection. We cite primary sources (FCA, HMRC, ONS, FOS, FSCS) for every quantitative claim, review regulatory content at least quarterly, and publish visible corrections where we get something wrong.

Editorial principles

  • Accuracy first. Where we say something, we cite the source. Where we don't have a source, we don't say it.
  • Independence. Wealth Analytica is a technology vendor. We hold strong opinions on tools and approaches, including our own — and we're honest when a competitor does something we don't.
  • Plain English. Our audience is busy IFAs and paraplanners. We don't pad. We avoid corporate filler. We assume practitioner-level knowledge of the industry but explain emerging regulation in full.
  • No undisclosed conflicts. If a piece of content is sponsored, supplied by a third party, or relates to a commercial relationship of ours, we say so at the top of the piece.

Author bylines and reviewer attribution

We don't publish under a generic editorial byline. Every article carries the name of a real human author with credentials and a profile page on this site that includes their LinkedIn profile.

On articles that touch FCA rules, suitability, investment selection, or any other topic where getting it wrong could cost a reader money or a regulator's good opinion, we also list a second named reviewer. Both author and reviewer appear visibly at the top of the article and in the structured data. You can find our four publishing authors on the authors hub.

Fact-checking process

Before an article is published it passes through three checks:

  1. Author research — every quantitative claim is checked against the source the author intends to cite. Vague claims ("studies show", "research suggests", "industry experts agree") are not allowed without a named source.
  2. Reviewer pass — a second named author reads the piece end to end, flags claims that need a citation, and signs off on factual accuracy. For regulatory content, the reviewer is one of the two IFA subject-matter authors on the bench.
  3. Pre-publish detector check — every draft is run through at least two AI-content detectors. We use AI tools to assist drafting and research, but the named author retains full responsibility for the final piece. We do not publish AI-only content; the author has read every sentence.

Sourcing standards

Where a quantitative claim rests on a public source, we link directly to the specific document — not just the homepage of the issuing body. For UK financial-services content, that primarily means:

  • FCA Handbook, policy statements, consultation papers
  • HMRC manuals and updates
  • ONS economic releases
  • Financial Ombudsman Service decisions and annual data
  • FSCS published data on claims and protected funds
  • Bank of England statistical releases
  • Named industry research (NextWealth, PIMFA, PFS, Citywire, FT Adviser, Money Marketing, Professional Adviser) with publication date

We don't cite "industry sources said" or "according to one survey" without naming the survey and the publisher.

Review cadence

  • Regulatory content — reviewed at least quarterly. The FCA's rulebook changes; so does our content. Where a piece is materially affected by a new policy statement, the reviewer revises and the article shows a revised publication date.
  • Evergreen content — reviewed annually at minimum, more often where the subject matter is moving (AI in advice, anything tied to Consumer Duty outcomes monitoring).
  • Comparison content — reviewed every six months. Competitor product features and prices move; we re-check before we re-recommend.

Every article footer shows both the original publication date and the last-reviewed date. When we make a non-trivial factual change, we add a dated correction note at the foot of the piece.

Corrections

If you spot something we've got wrong, email hello@wealthanalytica.com with the URL and the issue. We respond within one business day. Where the correction is material, the article carries a visible "Correction" note with the date and what was changed.

Use of AI tools

We use AI tools to assist with research and first-draft work. The named author and reviewer retain full responsibility for every claim in every article. AI-generated statistics, AI-fabricated citations, and AI-attributed quotes are not allowed. Final pieces are checked against AI-content detectors to ensure they read as human-written work — because they are.

Sponsored or commercial content

Comparison pages on this site name specific competitor products and pricing. That's commercial content — clearly labelled as such, factually sourced, and accurate as of the date stamped on the page. We don't disparage competitors and we don't publish claims we couldn't substantiate in writing.

We don't currently accept paid sponsorships on editorial articles. If that changes, every sponsored piece will be visibly labelled at the top and excluded from the trust-signal patterns used on editorial content.

Last reviewed: 14 May 2026 · Reviewed quarterly · Questions? hello@wealthanalytica.com