Editorial Integrity Code

Purpose

The Editorial Integrity Code keeps Parliament People explanations useful without weakening the boundary between parliamentary source material and product interpretation.

Core Standards

• The official parliamentary record remains authoritative.
• Parliament People summaries are explanatory, not official.
• AI-assisted text must be source-grounded, attributable, reviewable, and corrected when needed.
• Source links and provenance should stay close to interpretation.
• Generated titles should orient readers without sensationalising.
• Material disagreement should be preserved where it matters for understanding.
• Limitations should be stated plainly.

Claims Made In Parliament

When source material contains a claim, Parliament People should avoid silently converting that claim into a product-endorsed fact. The product may report that a claim was made, attribute it to the speaker, preserve relevant context, and link users to source material.

Misleading Or Contested Statements

Reviewers should consider extra context, direct source linking, human rewrite, or escalation when a generated summary could:

• launder an unsupported claim into fact
• create false balance
• omit material procedural or voting context
• create unfair or defamatory framing
• imply motive, sincerity, or intent without support
• over-amplify harmful claims without context

Escalation

High-risk, contested, legal-sensitive, or public-figure complaints should be routed to the review queues and lines-of-defence process before public closeout.