How We Decide What to Publish

1. Our Editorial Philosophy

At Open Angle Post, we believe that thoughtful analysis requires intellectual honesty, epistemic humility, and a commitment to clarity over speed. Our editorial decisions are guided by our core values: calm over speed, process over position, understanding before judgment, and intellectual honesty.

We publish content that helps readers understand complex issues more clearly, even when the truth is uncomfortable or uncertain. We aim to reduce polarization by helping people understand not just what happened, but why it matters and what might come next.

2. Internal Litmus Tests

Before publishing any piece, we subject it to four critical questions:

• ✓
  Does this increase clarity without increasing heat?We prioritize content that helps readers understand issues more deeply without stoking anger, outrage, or tribalism. If a piece would make someone more informed but more emotionally reactive, we revise it.
• ✓
  Are we separating facts, fears, and values?We explicitly distinguish between what happened (facts), what people worry might happen (fears), and what people believe should happen (values). This separation is crucial for honest discourse.
• ✓
  Are we honest about what we don't know?Uncertainty is a feature, not a bug. We use confidence markers to show our level of certainty, acknowledge gaps in information, and distinguish between what we know, what we think we know, and what we don't know.
• ✓
  Would someone who disagrees feel understood?We practice steelmanning—presenting the strongest version of opposing views. If we can't fairly represent a position we disagree with, we haven't understood it well enough to write about it.

3. Topic Selection Criteria

We prioritize topics based on several factors:

• •Significance: Does this issue matter to a substantial number of people? Does it have lasting implications?
• •Confusion: Is there widespread misunderstanding or polarization around this topic that we can help clarify?
• •Forward-looking value: Can we provide analysis that helps people understand not just what happened, but what might happen next?
• •Our capacity: Do we have the expertise, resources, and sources necessary to produce quality analysis on this topic?
• •Gap in coverage: Are we providing a perspective or analysis that's missing from other sources?

We avoid covering topics solely because they're trending or controversial. We also avoid topics where we cannot add meaningful value beyond what's already available.

4. Source Selection and Verification

We prioritize accuracy and reliability in our source selection:

• •Primary sources: We prefer original documents, data, and direct quotes over secondary interpretations
• •Credible outlets: We rely on established news organizations and institutions with strong track records of accuracy
• •Diverse perspectives: We seek sources that represent multiple viewpoints on contentious issues
• •Expert verification: For specialized topics, we consult with subject matter experts or cite established authorities
• •Source transparency: We provide citations and links to sources so readers can verify our claims

We avoid anonymous sources except when absolutely necessary for safety reasons, and we clearly indicate when we're using such sources. We do not rely on unverified social media posts or unsubstantiated claims.

5. Editorial Process and Structure

5.1 Article Format

Every article follows our canonical seven-section format:

1. What Happened: A clear, factual summary of events
2. Why It Matters: The significance and implications
3. Key Takeaways: Essential points readers should remember
4. Different Perspectives: How various groups or experts view the issue
5. What's Next: Forward-looking analysis and potential outcomes
6. Confidence Level: Our assessment of how certain we are about our analysis
7. Sources: Citations and links to original sources

5.2 Editorial Review

Every piece undergoes internal review before publication:

• •Fact-checking against original sources
• •Verification that all litmus tests are met
• •Review for clarity, tone, and intellectual honesty
• •Assessment of confidence levels and uncertainty markers
• •Review of source citations and attribution

5.3 Quality Assurance

We maintain quality through:

• •Multiple rounds of review and revision
• •Regular calibration sessions to ensure consistent standards
• •Feedback mechanisms to learn from mistakes and improve

6. Confidence Markers and Uncertainty

We use confidence markers throughout our content to indicate our level of certainty:

• •High confidence: We have strong evidence and consensus among credible sources
• •Medium confidence: We have good evidence but acknowledge some uncertainty or disagreement
• •Low confidence: Information is limited, contested, or preliminary

We explicitly state what we don't know, acknowledge when evidence is limited or conflicting, and distinguish between facts, analysis, and speculation.

7. Corrections and Updates Policy

We are committed to accuracy and transparency in corrections:

• •When we discover factual errors, we correct them immediately and clearly mark the correction
• •All corrections are documented in our revision history with timestamps and explanations
• •For significant errors, we add a correction notice at the top or bottom of the article
• •We do not silently edit articles to change facts or conclusions; all substantive changes are tracked
• •Readers can report potential errors through our contact form, and we investigate all reports

If you believe you've found an error, please contact us at contact@oapost.com with details and sources.

8. Editorial Independence

Our editorial decisions are made independently of any external influence:

• •No funders, advertisers, or sponsors have any input into what we publish or how we cover topics
• •We do not accept payment or favors in exchange for coverage
• •We disclose any potential conflicts of interest when relevant (see our Funding page)
• •We reserve the right to cover topics that may be critical of our funders or their interests

Our commitment to editorial independence is non-negotiable and takes precedence over any business relationships.

9. Revision History and Transparency

We maintain complete transparency about changes to our content:

• •All changes to articles and living issues are tracked with timestamps
• •We document what changed and why, distinguishing between corrections, updates, and substantive revisions
• •Major changes to our analysis or conclusions are prominently flagged
• •Readers can view the full revision history of any article
• •We maintain pages documenting where we've changed our minds (see Changed Minds) and our known blind spots (see Blind Spots)

10. What We Don't Publish

We avoid publishing content that:

• •Fails any of our four litmus tests
• •Relies primarily on speculation or unsubstantiated claims
• •Is primarily opinion without substantial analysis or context
• •Is designed to provoke emotional reactions rather than inform
• •We lack the expertise or sources to cover adequately
• •Duplicates coverage available elsewhere without adding value

11. Contact Us

If you have questions about our editorial process or wish to suggest a topic for coverage, please contact us: