Method and accountability
Editorial standards
Source hierarchy
For program authority, status categories, eligibility, applications, rosters, ethics, and renewal, we prefer the current responsible judiciary or interpreter program. For exam languages, handbooks, registration, accommodations, scoring, retakes, and appeals, we use the provider named by that program. Local courts and contracting entities answer onboarding, assignment, contract, rate, invoice, and payment questions. No single source replaces the others.
Jurisdiction, language, status, and dates
A claim is useful only when its jurisdiction, court system, language pair, status category, source, version, and checked date are clear. Readers should confirm current requirements before acting. When an official answer is unclear, the responsible output is a question to confirm, not an invented fee, exam date, eligibility decision, passing claim, roster right, assignment, rate, or processing time.
Article review
Published articles require page-level review for source validity, legal and professional status, internal consistency, intent, and duplication. InterpreterPath does not silently bulk-rewrite or remove indexed article bodies during technical releases. A weak or outdated page should receive a documented review before revision, consolidation, redirect, noindexing, or deletion.
AI assistance
Automation may assist with organization, formatting, link checks, and drafts. It is not accepted as authority for a legal, certification, language-proficiency, exam, roster, ethics, renewal, assignment, employment, or rate claim. Current factual claims still require source review, and generated examples must not be presented as customer proof, credentials, program advice, exam results, or real-world outcomes.
Corrections
Send the page URL, disputed statement, and a supporting primary source to support@interpreterpath.com. Material corrections should update the visible page and modified date rather than being hidden in discovery metadata.