Evidence starts with the question
HSVHQ begins with a reader’s question, not a desired conclusion. Research, editorial drafting, qualified review, and publication are separate stages with separate authority.
AI may help discover or organize candidate material. It is never treated as a source, and automated output does not publish itself.
Sources are not interchangeable
Primary and direct evidence is preferred when possible: trial registries, original research, protocols, regulatory documents, conference material, investigator statements, and company filings for factual development status.
Guidelines and public-health agencies provide authoritative synthesis. Press releases, journalism, advocacy claims, forums, social media, and podcasts can identify questions or context, but important factual claims are checked against stronger evidence whenever possible.
Facts, interpretation, and absence stay distinct
A verified fact is directly supported by checked evidence. HSVHQ interpretation is a separate synthesis. A bounded search that finds no later record is not proof that nothing exists. Unsupported and contradicted claims remain labeled as such.
An expert quote is not a full-page medical review. One person’s experience is evidence of that person’s experience, not a population-level efficacy claim.
Research labels describe evidence, not hope
Program status is based on public evidence: active, awaiting results, completed, status unclear, discontinued, failed, or preclinical. “Cure” is never used as a status.
Evidence maturity follows a factual progression from preclinical evidence through human evidence, confirmatory evidence, regulatory review, and availability. Stage and maturity do not automatically mean success.
Limitations are part of the answer
Every substantive research-program page makes material unknowns and limits visible. It also explains what the record means for people today without diagnosing a reader, choosing treatment, or inventing an access timeline.
Draft is not published
A completed research packet can support an editorial draft; it does not authorize publication. Every research-program page requires traceable claims, human HSVHQ editorial approval, and an explicit publication decision. Straightforward reporting is one class. Evidence synthesis is another: HSVHQ may explain study design, reporting limits, evidence strength, bounded negative findings, and why biological activity is not the same as demonstrated clinical benefit. External expert review is encouraged for that work but is not automatically required. Qualified medical/scientific review becomes mandatory when a page makes specialist judgments such as causal safety conclusions, individualized implications, treatment recommendations, or extrapolations beyond the population studied. An AI source audit, editorial pass, expert quote, or successful build does not count as qualified review.
Published pages use two separate statements: “Editorially reviewed by HSVHQ.” and, unless qualified external review has occurred, “This page has not been externally medically reviewed.” Evidence and source audits support editorial work but are not presented as either of those reviews.
Freshness and corrections remain visible
Evidence-sensitive pages show when the evidence was last checked. Material factual corrections should remain public; grammar and style edits do not need a correction entry.