Largern is editorially independent. That sentence carries real weight for us, which is why we take care not to use it loosely.

Our newsroom operates behind a strict wall from our commercial team. Advertisers don't see articles before publication. Sponsors don't steer assignments. Investors don't sit on an editorial board. No one outside the newsroom has the authority to kill, reshape, or delay a story for commercial reasons.

When a piece is produced in partnership with a brand (a sponsored analysis or co-branded feature), it is labeled unmistakably at the top of the page. There is no grey area on this. If it's commercial content, it says so.

We work from primary sources wherever possible. That means original documents, legal filings, financial statements, published data, and on-the-record interviews. Not secondhand summaries, not single-source claims presented as settled fact.

When we rely on an anonymous source, we say so, and we explain why anonymity was granted. We use unnamed sources only when there is a clear and legitimate reason: a genuine risk to someone's livelihood, safety, or legal standing, and only with the sign-off of a senior editor.

Before publication, significant factual claims are checked against at least one independent corroborating source. When we can't independently verify something, we say that too, rather than hedging it into the copy until it disappears.

Writers and editors do not write about companies in which they hold equity, serve in advisory roles, or have a close personal relationship with leadership. Staff contributors are required to disclose these relationships upfront, and assignments are reallocated where necessary.

Our reporters covering markets and investment trends are prohibited from trading individual securities in the sectors they cover. Personal holdings must be disclosed to editorial leadership. We treat this seriously because readers trust us to.

Every product or service reviewed by Largern is tested under real operating conditions. We don't score things based on spec sheets or marketing decks. Scores and verdicts are determined by the reviewer, then reviewed by an editor. Not by the company being covered.

Companies frequently offer review units, early access, beta credentials, or press demo accounts to facilitate coverage. We accept these where they're genuinely necessary to test a product properly. Accepting a review unit does not guarantee a favorable review, or any review at all.

If a product is genuinely bad, we say so. If we can't test something rigorously enough to review it fairly, we don't publish a score.

We use AI tools for specific limited purposes: transcription, document search, background research, and fact cross-referencing. Every piece of published analysis, every reported conclusion, and every editorial judgment is written and verified by a human journalist.

We do not generate synthetic quotes, fabricated expert commentary, or AI-written copy presented as reported journalism. We don't use AI to construct interview subjects or approximate what a source 'would likely say'.

If AI substantially contributed to a piece beyond those limited tasks, we'll say so in the article.

When a story is critical of a named individual or organization, we contact them ahead of publication and give them a meaningful opportunity to respond. Not an email sent twenty minutes before we go live.

We aim for at least 48 hours' notice on significant investigative pieces. If a subject declines to comment, that's noted in the article. If a response arrives after publication, we consider whether it warrants a correction, an appended note, or a follow-up.

We credit original reporting from other publications when we build on it. If someone else broke the story, we say so.