Content Methodology

This page is the standard of evidence behind everything published on lovepaks.com. The editorial policy covers who writes and who checks. This one covers what we accept as proof.

The source hierarchy

For any factual assertion we work down this list and stop at the first level that actually answers the question:

1. The regulation or standard itself. If the question is what "biodegradable" is allowed to mean, the answer is in 16 CFR Part 260, not in an article about it.
2. Government agencies. FTC, EPA, USDA, DOE, CPSC, ENERGY STAR, and their state equivalents.
3. Peer-reviewed literature. Cited with authors, journal, year and a DOI or a stable link, so you can check it.
4. Standards organisations. ASTM, OECD, ISO and similar, where a test method is what settles the point.
5. Manufacturers, about their own equipment. A washing machine maker is the right source for what that machine does.

We do not cite marketing blogs, listicles, content farms, or articles whose own source is another article. Where a widely repeated number turns out to trace back to nothing, we say that instead of repeating it.

What "checked" means here

If a page attributes a figure to a named study, someone opened that study and matched the figure to it. That is a low bar and it should be — but it is exactly the bar that a plausible-sounding number fails. In building this site, checks caught a finding attributed to a real 2012 paper that the paper does not contain, and a quotation attributed to a federal agency that the agency did not write. Both read perfectly well. Neither survived being looked up.

Product claims versus everything else

We keep a written list of the things we can say about Love Paks as fact — the format, the count per pouch, the dose, the two formulas, plant-based, warm or cold water, standard and HE machines, rose quartz infused, refill pouch, the Loads of Love share, and the trademark registration. That list is the boundary.

Anything outside it does not go in, including things printed elsewhere on this website. That has bitten us: several drafts repeated phrases taken straight from our own product pages, and the check rejected them because the product page was not evidence either. When our marketing copy and this standard disagree, this standard wins, and the marketing copy is what changes.

Cultural framing is not a product claim

"Rose quartz is a stone many cultures have associated with love and compassion" is a statement about people. "Rose quartz makes you feel calmer" is a claim about a body. The first is publishable and true; the second is not something we will write.

Every page that touches this keeps four registers apart and labels them: historical fact, cultural belief, Love Brands philosophy, and scientifically demonstrated. For the rose quartz in Love Paks, the fourth is empty, and the pages say so.

One point of vocabulary, because it has caused confusion: "frequency" is a product name — the Aura Frequency Starter Pack is a separate item — not a description of how Love Paks work.

Prices, and why guides do not print them

A guide is written once and read for years. A price changes. Print a price into an evergreen article and you have scheduled a future error.

So guides here explain the arithmetic rather than the amount: cost per load is the pack price divided by the number of paks, multiplied by paks per load. Where a page needs a worked example, it is labelled as an example. Where a tool needs a real number, it reads the live price from the store at the moment you load it, so it cannot drift. Current prices live on product pages, which is the only place they can be right.

Comparisons

A comparative claim needs a stated basis. "Uses less plastic" is not a claim until you say less than what, measured how, and by whom. Where we do not have that measurement, we do not make the comparison — even when it would be flattering and probably true.

The same rule applies to competitors. We will compare formats, methods and what the labels legally mean. We will not characterise a named competitor's product without having looked at that product's own documentation.

Dates

We track three separate things and do not let one stand in for another:

• Published — when the page first went up.
• Last substantively updated — when the content actually changed.
• Last fact-reviewed — when the claims were checked against sources again.

We do not bump a date to look fresh. If nothing was reviewed, the date does not move.

When we get it wrong

The process above reduces errors; it does not eliminate them. When a page is wrong, the fix is to correct it and move the review date, not to soften the wording until it is technically defensible. If you find one, tell us.

Frequently asked questions

What sources do you accept?

Regulations and standards first, then government agencies, peer-reviewed literature, standards organisations, and manufacturers writing about their own equipment. We do not cite marketing blogs or articles whose own source is another article.

Why do your guides not show prices?

A guide is written once and read for years, and a price changes. Printing one into an evergreen page schedules a future error. We explain the arithmetic instead and keep current prices on product pages, where they can be kept right.

You repeat claims from your own product pages — is that allowed?

No, and it has been caught. Our own marketing copy is not evidence. Several drafts repeated phrases from our product pages and the check rejected them. When the two disagree, this standard wins and the marketing copy changes.

How do you write about rose quartz without making claims?

By keeping four registers apart and labelling them: historical fact, cultural belief, Love Brands philosophy, and scientifically demonstrated. For the rose quartz in Love Paks the fourth is empty, and the pages say so.

Do you update the date when you edit a page?

Only when something actually changed. We track publication, last substantive update and last fact review separately, and we do not move a date to look current.