Editorial Policy
Last updated: 2 September 2026
This page explains who writes arteamente.it, how we research and check what we publish, how we use automated tools, how we handle the fact that we write from Italy for readers in the United States and Canada, and how to tell us when we have got something wrong.
We write about business insurance, business finance, business law, human resources, management, and business software. These are subjects where a mistake can cost a reader money or create legal exposure. The standards below exist because of that.
Contents
1. Who we are
arteamente.it is published by Light S.r.l.s., VAT number 03770130195, Italy. It is edited It is edited and written by volunteers without a precise editorial scale.
Every article names its author. Every author has a page describing their relevant experience and what qualifies them to write on the subject, and stating plainly where they hold no professional qualification. We do not publish under generic house bylines such as “Staff” or “Editorial Team”, and we do not invent authors or credentials.
2. Who we write for
We write for founders, owners, and managers of small and mid-sized companies in the United States and Canada — people who have to decide something and do not have an in-house lawyer, CFO, or HR department to ask.
That shapes what we publish. We aim to be useful to someone about to make a decision, which means being specific about costs, trade-offs, and what usually goes wrong, and being equally specific about the point at which the reader should stop reading and call a professional.
3. How we research and source
- We prefer primary sources: statutes and regulations, publications from regulators and government agencies, official filings, court decisions, carrier and lender documentation, vendor documentation, and peer-reviewed research.
- We link to the source of every statistic, legal requirement, rate, and price we cite, so that you can check it yourself and see how current it is.
- We do not cite a figure we cannot trace to its origin. A number that appears widely across the internet without an identifiable source does not get published here.
- We say when something is contested among specialists, when the evidence is thin or drawn from a small or unrepresentative sample, and when practice differs by jurisdiction.
- We do not present a single study as settled fact, and we distinguish between what the law requires, what regulators recommend, and what is merely common practice.
- Where a source is a company with a commercial interest in the answer — a vendor’s own research, a broker’s survey — we say so when we use it.
4. Writing from Italy for a North American readership
We are an Italian company writing about United States and Canadian business practice. We think you should know that, and we think it obliges us to be more careful than a domestic publisher, not less.
In practice this means we work from official North American sources rather than from general knowledge, we name the jurisdiction whenever a rule is jurisdiction-specific, and we do not smooth over the differences between federal, state, provincial, and municipal rules in order to make an article read more cleanly. Where we are describing the position in one state or province and not another, we say which.
It also means we are careful with terminology that does not translate. Concepts such as at-will employment, statutory notice, severance, worker classification, and mandatory coverages work differently in the United States, in the common law provinces of Canada, and in Quebec, and we do not treat them as interchangeable.
5. Expert review in regulated categories
Articles in our Insurance, Finance, Legal, and Human Resources categories deal with subjects where an error can cost a reader money or create legal exposure.
Where an article makes a claim about a legal requirement, about what a policy covers, or about tax treatment, we submit it for review by a professional qualified in the relevant jurisdiction before publication. When that has happened, the article carries a line at the top naming the reviewer, their credential, the jurisdiction in which they are licensed, and the date of review.
An article without that line has not been reviewed by a professional. We do not hide this, and we do not use vague formulations such as “expert-verified” to suggest a level of scrutiny that did not take place. Read an unreviewed article as informed general writing, not as a professional opinion, and see our Disclaimer.
6. How we use artificial intelligence
We use artificial intelligence for research, outlining, drafting, and editing. We do not publish machine-generated text without human review.
A named person reads every article before it goes live, verifies every factual claim against its source, and takes responsibility for what is published. This matters because these systems produce confident, fluent text that can be wrong in specific ways: invented statistics, sources that do not exist or do not say what they are cited for, legal requirements that were never enacted, and figures that were true in one jurisdiction being presented as general.
Where automation contributed substantially to an article, we say so on that article. AI is never the reviewer: it does not check its own work here, and it does not sign off on anything in a regulated category.
7. How we test and compare software
In our Business Software category we distinguish clearly between two things, in the article itself:
- Products we have used. We say what we tested, in what configuration, and for how long. Our assessment is our editorial opinion, not a certification or an audit.
- Products we have not used. We say so, and the description is based on the vendor’s published documentation, pricing pages, and terms.
We never describe a test we did not run. Comparisons are built on the same criteria applied to every product in the set, and we state the criteria. Pricing and features are dated, because vendors change them frequently. Where a product handles payroll, HR, financial, or personal data, we point readers to the vendor’s own security, privacy, and data-residency terms rather than summarizing them.
8. Editorial independence
- Advertising and affiliate relationships never determine what we cover, what we conclude, or where a product ranks.
- We do not sell coverage, placement, links, or ranking positions, and we do not accept payment for a favourable review.
- Advertisers and affiliate partners have no right of review, no advance sight of articles, and no influence over editorial decisions.
- We do not remove or soften criticism of a company because it advertises with us or runs a programme we belong to.
- Nobody outside our editorial team sees an article before publication, other than a named expert reviewer under section 5.
- Where free access to a product was provided for testing, the article says so.
How we make money is set out in full in our Affiliate and Advertising Disclosure.
9. Dates, updates, and corrections
Every article shows the date it was published and, where applicable, the date it was last substantively reviewed. We change that date only when we have actually re-checked the content, never to make an article look fresher than it is.
We review articles in the Insurance, Finance, Legal, and Human Resources categories at least once a year, and sooner when the underlying rules change.
When we make a factual error, we correct it and add a dated correction note at the foot of the article saying what was wrong and what it now says. We do not quietly edit mistakes away, and we do not delete an article to make an error disappear.
To report an error, write to info@arteamente.it with the article title and what you believe is incorrect. We reply to every report, including the ones we end up disagreeing with.
10. What we do not publish
- Sponsored content presented as editorial, paid links, or syndicated marketing copy.
- Articles written by a vendor about its own product.
- Personalized advice. We publish general information; we are not licensed to advise anyone on their specific situation, and we do not pretend otherwise.
- Invented case studies, fabricated client results, or testimonials we cannot substantiate.
- Earnings claims, guaranteed savings, or any suggestion that following our content produces a predictable outcome.
- Content in a regulated category that we cannot source properly, however well it would rank.