How we work

This page explains how articles on sysnote are made, what we hold them to, and what happens when we get something wrong.

Sources and evidence

• We prefer primary sources: papers, code, documentation, changelogs, release notes and direct statements.
• Every article lists its sources and links to them.
• Company claims and benchmark results are reported as claims, attributed to whoever made them, unless they have been independently confirmed.
• We distinguish what was announced, released, previewed, tested and planned.
• Quotes, numbers, names and versions come from the sources as they are; we do not invent reactions, comparisons or conclusions.
• When a story rests on a post on X, we quote the original post rather than paraphrasing it.

What we cover

We cover developments that teach something about how AI technology works or where it is going: new models and methods, engineering changes, tools, research results — including failed approaches and inconvenient details. We usually skip announcements without technical substance, predictions without evidence and viral claims that cannot be traced to a source.

Not finding a story is a fine outcome. We do not publish to fill a schedule.

Corrections

If an article is wrong, we correct it and say what changed at the end of the article. Small fixes that do not change the meaning — a typo, a broken link — are made without a note.

To report an error, write to hello@sysnote.net with the article's address and what is wrong.

Comments

Reader comments are published only after an editor approves them.