Research is only as trustworthy as the method behind it. This is ours, stated plainly — including what we deliberately do not do.
Every research item begins at primary material — the legal text, the regulator's own publication, the standard as issued. We do not build research on secondary commentary and we do not cite other analysis as if it were evidence.
Before publication, each source is checked for issuing authority, jurisdiction, date, current version and whether it has since been amended or superseded. Verification dates are recorded and published — not implied.
Verified material is mapped to the structures that make it usable: which regulation, which obligation, which actor, which system type, which jurisdiction, which industry. Analysis is labelled as analysis and kept visually distinct from legal text.
Research is a living object. When an underlying source changes, the research built on it is flagged, reviewed and revised — and the revision is shown, not silently applied. Every article carries its status, its revision history and the reason for each change.
We label the nature of evidence — primary source, official guidance, standard, analysis — rather than assigning a percentage. A confidence figure implies a precision that cannot be justified, and invites readers to trust a number instead of a source.
AGNUS Research is an independent publication. It is not a law firm, regulator, notified body or certification authority. Research describes obligations and practice; it does not tell you that you are compliant.
When research changes materially, the change is surfaced with its date, reason and trigger. Readers who acted on an earlier version deserve to know what moved.
Where AGNUS has a commercial product relevant to a topic, it is clearly separated from the research, and we state plainly that using any product does not by itself establish regulatory compliance.
If you believe a piece of AGNUS Research is inaccurate, out of date or misrepresents a source, tell us. Corrections are made in the open with a dated revision note. Research that cannot be corrected in public is not research worth publishing.