{
  "id": 15685986,
  "title": "I grade every game fact A, B or C before it goes live",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/20/i-grade-every-game-fact-a-b-or-c-before-it-goes-live",
  "topic": "tech",
  "section": "Tech",
  "published": "2026-10-20T02:20:57.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Dev.to",
    "slug": "dev-to",
    "url": "https://dev.to/nichetools/i-grade-every-game-fact-a-b-or-c-before-it-goes-live-1964"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "Every game guide must undergo a grading process before publication, with each claim being sorted into one of three tiers. Tier A consists of hard facts that can be verified against a primary source, such as price, release date, platforms, player count, module counts, and review scores. These facts are linked back to the store page or the store's API, with a re-check date attached. It is important to note that a Tier A claim without a date is not considered a Tier A claim. Tier B includes how-to content, such as solving rules, role techniques, which modules appear together on which level, and timing behavior. For this content, at least two independent sources must agree before it can be published as fact. This is where the issue of copying from other fan sites becomes particularly problematic. Tier C comprises unconfirmed information, such as console release dates, mobile crossplay, per-level walkthroughs, and unreleased content. These claims are not published as fact and are either left out entirely or explicitly labeled as \"unannounced\" or \"not confirmed.\" The grading system has led to a smaller, more concise site with fewer, shorter pages. Errors are easier and cheaper to fix when they are clearly marked as Tier A, B, or C. The system also encourages honesty by allowing the label \"we don't know\" for unconfirmed information. However, grading is a slow process and does not become faster with increased volume. Ultimately, the rules and the exact wording of each tier should be documented on the site to ensure that overrides are made with full transparency.",
  "summary": "I once published a description of a feature that did not exist. It was a small thing — a paragraph explaining that a tool accepted a URL parameter it had never accepted. Nobody complained. I found it myself, three days later, while reading my own page trying to remember why I had written it. The feature was plausible. It fit the rest of the product. I had clearly assumed it into existence…",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}