1. Classical fidelity before modern analogy
When AUMQuotient discusses concepts such as Sattva, Rajas, Tamas, Dharma or Karma, the classical concept is not retroactively rewritten to make a modern technology claim. Applications to AI, social media, work culture or digital attention are presented as contemporary interpretations.
2. Different claims require different evidence
Contemporary empirical claims are cited to research or authoritative sources where appropriate. A research finding is not used to claim scientific validation for the Guna framework, and a Dharmic framework is not presented as if it were a clinical diagnostic instrument.
3. Prefer primary and authoritative sources
For research-led articles, preference is given to original papers, recognised research institutions and primary documentation rather than unattributed summaries. References are shown visibly on the page when they support material contemporary claims.
4. Reflection is not diagnosis
AUMQuotient assessments are designed for self-reflection. The Guna Snapshot is a present-state reflection with deterministic scoring and explicit limitations. It does not diagnose mental health, establish permanent personality, assign moral worth or determine a person's Dharma for them.
See the Guna Snapshot Methodology for the scoring and interpretation boundary.
5. AI may assist expression; it does not become scoring authority
The free Snapshot score and band are deterministic. Optional AI may assist narrative wording in paid reading flows, but it does not change the underlying score or band. Educational editorial content remains responsible for source fidelity, limitations and visible evidence regardless of whether AI tools assisted drafting or research workflow.
6. Authorship and dates should be truthful
Current educational articles are published by AUMQuotient as the responsible organisation. Publication dates are shown on article pages. An updated date should change only when the visible article is materially revised. Individual reviewers or credentials should be named only when that review actually occurred and can be represented truthfully.
7. Corrections are part of the editorial record
If a material factual error, misleading citation or interpretation boundary is identified, the page should be corrected rather than preserved for search performance. Material revisions should update the visible modified date and corresponding structured data.
8. Search visibility does not override editorial truth
AUMQuotient does not create fake authors, fake reviews, fake trust badges, invented citations, doorway pages or keyword padding to satisfy SEO scanners. Search and AI-discovery work should improve clarity, accessibility, crawlability and genuine usefulness without changing what the product can honestly claim.
Questions or corrections
Send editorial questions or correction requests to [email protected]. For product context, see About AUMQuotient.