On this page
These documents explain how Digital Sanctum develops, reviews and maintains work. Each document identifies its own scope and adoption state. Publishing a procedure is not proof that every product or article conforms to it.
Choose the process for your work
| Document | Use it for | Current state |
|---|---|---|
| Journalistic or Web Article Process | Timely reporting, explainers, practical guides and clearly labelled commentary | SOP-154 v1.0, adopted internally. Canonical public mirror of the adopted internal version |
| Academic & Research Article Process | Original experiments and systematic evidence reviews requiring a defined question and method | SOP-155 v1.0, adopted internally. Canonical public mirror of the adopted internal version |
| UX and UI Design Standard | Proposed guidance for clear, accessible interfaces, visual communication and representative product experiences | Proposed v1.4, pending adoption. Its existing publication and status are unchanged |
What the editorial processes require
Both processes make evidence, uncertainty and responsibility visible. They require a commissioned brief, sources matched to claims, reviewers who did not author the candidate, attributable decisions on the exact version, and a correction path.
The research process adds a prospective method, data and code provenance, analysis and reproducibility limits. The journalistic process distinguishes discovery, disclosure, patching and exploitation, and checks the claimed role of AI. Adopting either process does not approve an article made under it, establish external peer review or grant publication authority.
Versions, ownership and changes
Digital Sanctum owns and maintains these processes. The canonical internal records are SOP-154 and SOP-155; each public mirror identifies its matched version. Proposed changes must be reviewed and accepted in the canonical record before a corresponding mirror is released. Previous versions, decisions and corrections remain traceable.
The UX/UI document follows its own proposal and adoption path. Its presence beside adopted editorial processes does not adopt it by association.
See the reporting process applied
The PHP2Shell, Tailworm and OpenCode security explainer is a separate security explainer. It shows the difference between an evidenced AI connection, an infrastructure-security report and a qualified architectural comparison. Each article requires its own independent review and release decision; adopting a process does not approve an article.
Suggest a correction
Use our contact form and identify the document, version, passage and supporting evidence. We assess whether a correction, clarification or new version is needed, then retain the reason and affected decisions.