Editorial Standards and Ethics

Purpose and scope

The Latent exists to provide accurate, independent and useful journalism, research, data and analysis about artificial intelligence — the models, products, companies, infrastructure, policy and people shaping the industry. Our first obligation is to the truth and to our readers. Their trust is our most valuable asset, and it must be earned again every day.

We report without fear or favor. Advertisers, sponsors, investors, owners, clients, sources and commercial partners do not determine our coverage decisions or our conclusions. Our work cannot be bought.

The AI industry presents unusual editorial challenges. Capability claims are often hard to independently verify. Labs and vendors may disclose selectively. Benchmarks can be gamed or narrowly scoped. Product launches and safety incidents can move markets and public policy quickly. Closed systems, proprietary training data and rapid iteration demand more transparency and care, not less.

These standards apply to all editorial and research staff, editors, reporters, producers, contributors, contractors, freelancers and anyone else creating journalism, research, data, ratings or media content published under The Latent’s name. Freelancers and contributors are held to the same standards as staff.

No written policy can anticipate every situation. When the correct course is unclear, staff must disclose the issue to an editor before acting. The guiding question is always this: would a reasonable reader, knowing all the relevant facts, trust that our work was produced independently, fairly and in the public interest?

Core principles

We are journalists first. Whether a team member acts as reporter, researcher or analyst, they adhere to the highest professional standards whenever their work appears under The Latent’s name.
We work with the industry, not for it. We cover artificial intelligence critically and fairly. We may call out an individual, lab, product or company, but we will always give them a chance to respond, and we do not treat our own word as gospel.
We cannot be bought. We do not accept payment, equity, API credits, compute grants or any other consideration in exchange for coverage, favorable framing or the suppression of a story. Any attempt to pay for coverage will be refused and may itself be reported on. Any business relationship that requires compromising editorial standards will be terminated.
We seek truth relentlessly and transparently. We are not a black box. We explain how we work, acknowledge uncertainty and correct our mistakes openly.
News judgment is editorial, not commercial. Decisions about what we cover reflect news value, resources and reader interest. They are never influenced by advertisers, sponsors, investors or commercial partners.

1 Accuracy comes first

We compete to be first, but we place being right above being first.

Journalists must:

verify material facts before publication;
rely whenever possible on primary documents, direct observation, original data and sources with first-hand knowledge;
distinguish clearly between confirmed fact, allegation, analysis, estimate and opinion;
accurately represent the strength and limitations of the available evidence;
seek the original source of statistics, documents, screenshots, recordings, model cards, papers and claims rather than relying on summaries or reposts;
provide sufficient context so that technically accurate information does not become misleading;
link to or identify primary source material when doing so helps readers evaluate the evidence.

Accuracy applies to every format. Headlines, subheadings, push notifications, social media posts, newsletters, charts, captions and video framing must fairly represent the underlying reporting. A headline or notification must not assert more than the story supports.

Verification standard. As a working norm, we aim for at least two independent sources for each point of fact, or at least one immutable or authoritative source such as a court filing, a public regulatory record, an official company filing, a peer-reviewed or preprint research paper with clear provenance, or primary documentation we have independently obtained. There is no mechanical rule that satisfies this obligation in every case. The required level of verification rises with the stakes: serious allegations, information from anonymous sources and claims likely to move markets or damage reputations require correspondingly stronger corroboration. A single authoritative document may sometimes be sufficient; several sources may still be insufficient if none is in a position to know the facts.

Most stories originate from tips. Tips are leads, not facts, and must be confirmed before publication. We do not publish information merely because it is circulating widely.

2 Fairness and the right of reply

Fairness does not require false equivalence, but it does require an honest effort to understand and accurately represent relevant perspectives.

People and organizations facing significant criticism, allegations of wrongdoing or materially adverse reporting must be given a meaningful opportunity to respond before publication. The time provided depends on the complexity and urgency of the story, how long The Latent has been reporting the matter, the seriousness of the allegations and whether public safety, market integrity or another compelling interest requires prompt publication.

Breaking, market-moving news may require short deadlines, with a minimum of one hour of notice and urgency flagged clearly in our outreach. This minimum exists because delay in fast-moving markets and product cycles can itself harm readers; it is a floor for genuine spot news, not a default.

Allegations of wrongdoing and other materially adverse reporting that is not driven by an immediate breaking-news imperative warrant more time — ordinarily at least one full business day, and for longer investigations ideally several days — unless a compelling public interest requires faster publication, in which case the decision must be approved by a managing editor or above.

Our outreach identifies the substance of the matters on which we seek comment without unnecessarily disclosing confidential sources, unpublished reporting or a complete draft.

If a party does not respond before publication, the story will say so. A response received after publication will be considered promptly and, when newsworthy or necessary for fairness, incorporated into an update or follow-up.

No prior review. Sources and story subjects never see articles before publication and never hold approval rights. We may verify quotations, technical details or specific factual points when doing so improves accuracy, but sources do not control the final story.

3 Sources and attribution

Readers should know where information comes from whenever possible. We prefer named, on-the-record sources because attribution lets readers evaluate credibility and accountability.

Identification. Anyone conducting interviews or outreach on behalf of The Latent identifies themselves as a Latent journalist, whether contact occurs by email, phone, social platform or messaging app.

On the record by default. Anyone speaking with a working journalist is on the record unless different terms are agreed at the time. There is no retroactive off the record; a source cannot unilaterally impose that condition after providing information. Social media posts, press releases, public statements, remarks at public events, direct messages and emails to Latent journalists are all on the record.

Source terms. Terms should be agreed before information is provided. Unless otherwise agreed:

On the record: Information and quotations may be published and attributed by name.
On background: Information may be published and attributed to the source under an agreed description (for example, “a person familiar with the matter” or “an executive at the company”), without naming the source.
Deep background: Information may be used to inform and guide reporting but may not be quoted or attributed to the source in any form. It must be independently confirmed before publication.
Off the record: Information is not for publication and may not be used to advance the reporting. A journalist must explicitly agree to this condition in advance.

Journalists must honor the source agreements they make.

Anonymity. Anonymity is granted sparingly, when information is important and the source faces a legitimate risk such as retaliation, legal exposure, loss of employment or physical harm. Before granting it, journalists and editors consider whether the source is in a position to know, why anonymity is needed, whether the source has a financial, political, personal or competitive motive, whether the information can be independently corroborated and whether its public value justifies withholding the identity. The identity of every anonymous source must be known to the reporter and at least one appropriate editor. We describe anonymous sources as specifically as possible without exposing them or misleading readers about their knowledge.

No payment. We do not pay sources, and sources do not pay us.

Plagiarism and fabrication are firing offenses. We do not fabricate quotes, sources, documents, data, scenes or events. All material drawn from other outlets or research is attributed and, where possible, linked.

4 Embargoes and non-public information

The Latent may agree to an embargo when doing so serves readers by allowing time for responsible reporting. We are not bound by embargoes we did not agree to.

Embargoed material must not be shared beyond the people who need it for legitimate editorial work. It must never be shared with traders, investors, commercial partners or anyone who could use it for financial advantage. The same rule applies to all market-sensitive information obtained through our work.

No employee or contributor may use confidential, embargoed, unpublished or otherwise non-public information obtained through The Latent for personal gain or to benefit another person.

5 Corrections, clarifications and updates

We own our mistakes and correct them openly. Material factual errors are corrected promptly and transparently. We never silently alter a story in a way that conceals a significant mistake.

Depending on the circumstances, a story may receive:

an update when new information has been added after publication;
a clarification when the original wording was accurate but could reasonably be misunderstood;
a correction when published information was materially wrong;
an editor’s note when readers need a fuller explanation of an editorial issue, substantial change or unusual circumstance;
a retraction when the central premise of a story cannot be supported and correction alone would be insufficient.

Correction notes explain what was wrong and what was fixed without repeating the erroneous claim unnecessarily. When a material error appeared in a headline, social post, newsletter, push notification, chart or video, we correct that format as well. Routine copy edits and minor typographical fixes do not require a note unless they materially alter meaning.

Developing stories expand on a permanent URL. New facts are added as dated updates;datePublished stays fixed and dateModified reflects material change. Requests for corrections are evaluated by the newsroom on the merits. Decisions about corrections are never dictated or influenced by advertisers, investors, commercial teams, or pressure from story subjects. Disagreement with our reporting is not by itself evidence of an error. Readers who spot an error can contact corrections@thelatent.co.

6 Editorial independence

Editorial decisions are made on journalistic grounds. Coverage will not be promised, withheld, accelerated, softened or removed in exchange for money, advertising, sponsorship, subscriptions, access, investment, consulting arrangements, business relationships, equity, API credits, gifts, favors, employment opportunities or any other benefit.

Staff must never imply to a source that payment, advertising or another commercial relationship can secure favorable editorial treatment.

Commercial considerations may influence business products and distribution decisions, but they must never determine the facts, conclusions, ratings or editorial judgment contained in independent journalism.

7 Separation of editorial and commercial functions

The Latent operates businesses that may include journalism, research, data, events, subscriptions, advertising, sponsorships and affiliate partnerships. That breadth can give our journalists useful context, and it requires strict boundaries.

Structural separation:

Editorial, sales and research maintain separate digital communication channels and, to the extent office arrangements allow, separate physical spaces.
Specific requests between sales or research and editorial must be routed through a newsroom managing editor or above.
Editorial is not privy to the financial details of sponsorships, advertising or affiliate arrangements.
Editorial is not privy to the identity of commercial prospects — companies with which the business side is negotiating or hopes to do business. Once a sponsorship is signed and involves an editorial component (such as a sponsored event or webinar under Section 11), the sponsor’s identity is necessarily disclosed to the editor-in-chief and the editorial participants involved, solely so that the safeguards in Section 11 can be applied. Knowledge of a confirmed sponsor must never influence independent coverage of that sponsor.

Editorial staff may not participate in commercial sales conversations, negotiate advertising or sponsorships, or share embargoed or non-public information with commercial teams.

Commercial teams may not encourage or discourage coverage of any company, person, product or subject, disclose with whom they are or are not having commercial discussions, or share confidential client information with the newsroom as an unofficial source of privileged information.

Permitted collaboration. Journalists and researchers may discuss publicly available information and speak in general terms about their work. Journalists may cite The Latent’s published research and data as they would any other source, subject to the same standards of accuracy and attribution. Journalists may discuss news products, gather product feedback and collaborate with sales on product development, never on coverage.

Any complaint about editorial coverage that reaches a commercial or other non-editorial team must be referred to a managing editor or above.

8 Ownership and investor transparency

Owners, shareholders, directors and investors receive no special editorial treatment, and none may dictate the outcome of independent coverage. The Latent may and will report critically on its owners, investors, their affiliates, portfolio companies, business partners and competitors.

The Latent is an authorized sister publication to The Block. The publications are related but editorially independent. Each maintains its own judgment, archives and canonical URLs. We disclose the sister relationship on ownership and editorial pages and cite The Block only when the source is useful to readers — never as a bulk backlink mechanism.

Readers evaluating our independence should treat coverage touching The Block, its majority investor Foresight Ventures, Bitget (an anchor limited partner of Foresight Ventures), or their affiliates and portfolio companies as implicating a material institutional relationship when those entities are relevant to the story. When an ownership, investment or other institutional relationship is material to a story and could reasonably affect a reader’s assessment of our independence, we disclose it within the story. This section is updated whenever those relationships materially change and at each annual review.

9 Personal financial interests and trading

Because The Latent covers companies, markets and products in artificial intelligence, personal financial interests require particular care.

Public disclosure. The Latent maintains a public financial disclosures practice for full-time editorial and research staff and contractors, listing material positions in publicly traded securities, private AI-related companies and other interests that could reasonably affect reader trust, updated on a regular schedule.

Materiality threshold: positions with a USD-equivalent value of $5,000 or more must be publicly disclosed. Small holdings below that threshold are treated as non-material for public listing purposes, though they may still create an internal conflict.

Thinly traded securities, private-company interests and concentrated positions receive heightened internal scrutiny. Staff must disclose to a managing editor or above any interest that could create an actual, potential or perceived conflict with their work, regardless of size, and may be recused from related coverage.

Prohibited conduct. Staff must not:

trade on material non-public information obtained through their work, including knowledge of unpublished coverage;
tell another person how to trade based on confidential newsroom information;
manipulate coverage to benefit a financial position;
accept undisclosed equity, advisory interests, preferential investment opportunities or similar benefits from entities they cover;
promote a company, product or service without disclosing a relevant financial interest.

Coverage conflicts. A journalist who owns a security or interest directly and materially implicated in an assignment must disclose the interest to an editor before covering it. Depending on the circumstances, the appropriate response may include in-story disclosure to readers, reassignment, recusal or trading restrictions.

Trading blackout. Staff must not buy, sell or materially change a position in a security, private interest, prediction-market contract or derivative directly implicated in an assignment from the time they become aware of the assignment or relevant unpublished information until at least 24 hours after publication. The 24-hour floor is a minimum, not a safe harbor. Editors must impose longer restrictions when circumstances warrant — including for thinly traded names, ongoing investigations, anticipated follow-up coverage and situations where the market impact of the reporting is still unfolding.

Household members. The disclosure obligations, coverage-conflict rules and trading blackouts in this section extend to interests and trading that the staff member knows of and can reasonably be expected to influence in accounts held by a spouse, domestic partner or dependent. Directing or suggesting trades through a household member to circumvent these rules is treated as a violation by the staff member.

Long-term, passive ownership does not automatically disqualify a journalist from covering a subject. The relevant questions are materiality, independence, transparency and whether a reasonable reader would perceive the interest as compromising the work.

Nothing in our disclosures or coverage constitutes financial advice.

10 Gifts, travel, access and outside activities

We do not accept benefits that could reasonably appear to influence our journalism.

Staff may not accept from people or entities we cover or may cover: cash or cash equivalents; equity or preferential investment opportunities; valuable gifts or hospitality; paid advisory, consulting, ambassador or promotional roles; referral payments; undisclosed commissions; unlimited free API or compute access offered as personal compensation; or any other material benefit.

Nominal promotional items may be accepted when refusal would be impractical, and conference passes and working meals customary to newsgathering are acceptable with editor awareness. None of these may influence coverage.

Review access. Model access, API credits, hardware or services supplied for review are handled under procedures that preserve independence. Where practical, review units and sustained free access are returned, purchased or otherwise handled so they do not become personal compensation. Material review access that could reasonably affect reader trust is disclosed.

Travel. The Latent ordinarily pays the reasonable travel and accommodation costs of journalists covering events. When another party pays and the arrangement is editorially justified, that support must not guarantee coverage or favorable treatment and must be disclosed when material.

Outside work. Staff must obtain approval from a managing editor or above before undertaking outside paid work, speaking engagements or investments that could create a conflict, and may not promote products in a personal capacity in ways that compromise impartiality. No one may accept compensation from any entity in exchange for coverage, access, favorable commentary or promotion.

11 Sponsored content, advertising and affiliate relationships

Paid material must never be confused with independent journalism. Ads look like ads.

All sponsored or branded content is prominently labeled in language a reasonable reader can understand and is visually distinguishable from editorial content.
Sponsors may not influence independent editorial work, explicitly or implicitly, and a commercial relationship does not guarantee coverage.
The editorial team will not produce custom content where a sponsor has influence over the resulting work product.

Sponsored events and webinars with an editorial component. The sponsorship must be clearly disclosed. Sponsor involvement is limited to proposing the topic framing, which must be approved by the editor-in-chief. Sponsors may not dictate or approve discussion content; control which journalists or guests participate; see or approve questions in advance; require positive treatment; or feature more than one sponsor representative as a participant. Editorial participants retain full control over questions and conclusions.

Affiliate relationships. Some links on our site may be affiliate links, and The Latent may earn a commission when readers use them, at no extra cost to the reader. Such relationships are always disclosed. Affiliate relationships must never determine factual findings, editorial conclusions, product scores, criticism, rankings, the order in which products appear in editorial content, or whether material risks are disclosed. Paid placement appears only in modules that are clearly labeled as sponsored, visually separated from editorial rankings and recommendations.

12 Ratings, reviews and recommendations

Ratings and reviews use a transparent methodology that is understandable, consistently applied and appropriate to the subject. Relevant criteria may include capability, reliability, cost, security and risk, usability, transparency, documentation, customer experience and limitations. The methodology explains its significant limitations and is updated when products, risks or market conditions materially change.

A commercial relationship never determines a score, a ranking position or an editorial verdict. We include the best options in our view whether or not an affiliate relationship exists. Where a rating or recommendation involves a material affiliate, sponsorship, ownership or other financial relationship, readers must be able to identify it.

We never claim to have reviewed, tested or verified a product in a manner we did not actually perform. Reviews distinguish between direct testing, document-based analysis, third-party evidence, company claims and editorial judgment.

13 News, analysis and opinion

Readers should always be able to tell what kind of content they are reading.

Straight news does not contain the writer’s unattributed personal opinion.
Analysis may include interpretation and informed judgment but must remain grounded in evidence and distinguish facts from conclusions.
Opinion and commentary are clearly labeled, and contributors writing opinion pieces must disclose material financial or professional interests relevant to the subject.

A strongly worded conclusion is not unethical merely because a source dislikes it. Our obligation is to reach conclusions fairly, transparently and on the basis of evidence.

14 Reporting on AI systems, benchmarks and technical claims

Technical artifacts can be powerful evidence, and they can also be misunderstood. A benchmark score may be reproducible under narrow conditions while remaining a poor guide to real-world performance. A model card or system card may omit material limitations. A demo can be staged.

When reporting on AI systems and technical claims, journalists must:

distinguish vendor claims from independently verified results;
explain significant assumptions, evaluation conditions and known limitations;
identify the source of benchmarks, leaderboards, eval harnesses and attribution when material;
seek corroboration before treating unpublished or leaked capability claims as established fact;
avoid presenting probabilistic estimates, internal rumors or third-party labels as certain fact;
use terms such as AGI, autonomous, jailbreak, hallucination, deepfake, open weights, open source and safety with precision supported by the available evidence.

Prediction markets as evidence. Prediction-market prices may be cited as an indicator of market sentiment or crowd expectation, with the platform identified and, where relevant, liquidity and depth noted. They must never be presented as established fact, as a forecast endorsed by The Latent, or as evidence that an event occurred or will occur.

Claims that a release, rumor or outage caused a price movement require evidence; timing alone does not establish causation. We exercise special caution with launch rumors, safety incidents, regulatory actions and any other information capable of producing immediate market or policy movements.

15 Security incidents and sensitive technical information

Reporting on vulnerabilities, model exfiltration, active exploits and misuse requires balancing the public interest against the risk of enabling additional harm. We may temporarily withhold operational details that would materially assist an ongoing attack or breach when those details are not necessary for readers to understand the story.

We do not guarantee secrecy to companies merely because information is embarrassing or damaging. The decision to delay or withhold technical details is an editorial judgment based on the risk of harm and the public interest.

Journalists must not participate in unauthorized access, theft or hacking. Information obtained from leaks, breaches or unauthorized disclosures may still be newsworthy, but its use requires careful verification and consideration of privacy, safety, legality and the public interest.

16 Privacy, dignity and minimizing harm

The fact that information can be published does not always mean it should be. We weigh the public interest against potential harm, particularly when reporting on private individuals, victims, minors, people facing physical danger, medical or intensely personal information, home addresses and location data, and personal data exposed through hacks or leaks.

Public figures and people exercising significant power should expect greater scrutiny, but they retain legitimate privacy interests.

We do not reveal a person’s legal identity merely because we can. Identifying someone who has chosen anonymity or a pseudonym must serve a meaningful journalistic purpose — particularly when the person exercises public power, controls substantial resources, solicits public money or when identity is essential to understanding potential wrongdoing.

We never publish private keys, passwords, API secrets or other credentials that could facilitate theft or unauthorized access.

17 Deception and undercover reporting

Journalists ordinarily identify themselves as journalists when seeking information. Deception, hidden recording or undercover methods may be used only in exceptional circumstances when the information is of substantial public importance, cannot reasonably be obtained through open methods, the method is proportionate to the story, and senior editorial leadership has approved the approach.

We never impersonate another real person.

18 Quotes, documents, images, audio and data

Quotes must not be altered in a way that changes their meaning. Minor editing for clarity, such as removing verbal fillers, may be appropriate, but a journalist must not make a source appear more articulate, certain or categorical than the source actually was. Ellipses and excerpts must not distort context.

Press releases and corporate materials are sources, not journalism. Their claims are attributed and independently checked where material.

Images, audio and video must not be manipulated in a way that misleads readers about reality. Routine edits such as cropping or technical adjustments must not alter the underlying meaning of a news image. Illustrations and reconstructed or synthetic material must never be presented as documentary evidence.

19 Artificial intelligence and automation

AI tools may assist journalism, but responsibility for published work always rests with The Latent and the humans who create and edit it. A human editor is accountable for everything we publish, and final editorial judgment is never delegated to an automated system.

Staff may use approved AI tools for appropriate tasks such as brainstorming, transcription, translation assistance, document organization, coding support, data exploration and analysis, internal summarization, drafting support, search and research assistance, and production workflows. Machine-assisted translation and summaries used in publishing workflows are reviewed in Studio; editors can override automated fields, and human edits are never silently overwritten. All material facts, quotations, citations, calculations and conclusions produced or assisted by AI must be independently verified before publication under the standards in Section 1. Generative AI is never treated as an authoritative source.

Staff must not:

publish AI-generated content as original reporting, or publish invented facts, quotations, citations or sources generated by AI;
use AI to impersonate a real person deceptively;
place confidential source information, unpublished investigations, personal data or other sensitive material into unapproved external AI systems;
present synthetic images, audio or video as authentic documentary material.

The Latent discloses the use of AI when it has materially contributed to published text, analysis, imagery, audio or video in a way readers would reasonably consider relevant to evaluating the work. Routine assistive uses that do not materially shape the published journalism may not require individual disclosure.

21 Source protection and information security

Protecting confidential sources is an ethical obligation. Journalists take reasonable steps appropriate to the sensitivity of the reporting, including secure communications and careful handling of documents and identifying information. Staff should assume that digital communications can be compromised and seek security guidance for particularly sensitive investigations.

Promises of confidentiality are not made casually. Once made, they are honored except in extraordinary circumstances involving an imminent and grave threat, and any departure requires the highest level of editorial review.

22 Accountability and enforcement

These standards are a condition of producing work under The Latent’s name. Potential conflicts or ethical concerns must be disclosed promptly to an editor, a managing editor or the editor-in-chief. Good-faith disclosure is encouraged; concealing a conflict is itself a serious violation.

Depending on the circumstances, a response to an ethical issue may include additional disclosure, reassignment, recusal, enhanced editing or verification, a correction or editor’s note, removal or retraction of material, disciplinary action up to termination of employment or contract, and public disclosure where reader trust requires it.

Exceptions to these guidelines must be rare, justified by an overriding journalistic interest and approved at a senior editorial level. No commercial employee, advertiser, sponsor, owner, investor or source can authorize an exception to editorial standards.

Our commitment to readers

Trust is not something we can demand. It must be earned repeatedly.

We will make mistakes, and when we do, we will correct them. We will sometimes publish stories that companies, investors, sources, advertisers, owners or readers dislike, and disagreement will not prevent us from reporting facts we believe are true and in the public interest. We will listen to substantive criticism, explain our decisions when appropriate and improve our standards as journalism, technology and markets evolve.

Our work cannot be bought. Our conclusions are our own. Our obligation is to report what we can establish as true, explain what remains uncertain and give readers the information they need to make up their own minds.

Questions about these standards: editorial@thelatent.co · Corrections policy · Contact