Useful answers need a clear standard.
How BrokerMint approaches content, sources, review and corrections for the articles and answers we publish.
Write for a real question.
An article should help a reader understand a decision or take a useful next step. We avoid creating near-identical pages simply to repeat a keyword or imply a specialism the business does not have.
The content brief identifies the audience, the question and the evidence needed. Search visibility supports that purpose; it does not replace it.
Separate explanation from evidence.
Our guides contain original explanations and clearly marked examples. We link to primary guidance where a regulatory or technical statement needs support. A hypothetical calculation is not reported as a client result.
We do not publish fabricated testimonials, research samples, affiliations or performance claims. Real case studies need permission, a defined period and enough context for the numbers to mean something.
Review before relying on it.
Articles on this site are written by Tom Egan and published by BrokerMint. Our publishing process names the responsible author or reviewer, confirms expertise where relevant and keeps material sources current.
Lending, tax and legal claims require the appropriate review. Generated drafts can assist production, but they do not replace verification or make a marketing team a regulated adviser.
Correct and maintain.
Content needs a review date and a clear owner. If a material claim changes, update the page and record what changed. Old rates, obsolete policy references and broken enquiry routes should not remain simply because a page once performed well.
To request a correction, email hello@brokermint.com.au with the page and the issue. We review every request and update the page where a correction is needed.
