Our research and review methodology

1. Define the exact question

A page receives one primary search intent and one stable page key. We separate questions that look similar but require different evidence. “Kraken fees,” “xStocks fees” and “Kraken Prop commission” are not synonyms.

The title, H1, direct answer and URL must solve the same problem. A page is not expanded with unrelated keywords simply to create length.

2. Build a primary-source dossier

The preferred evidence order is:

1. legal terms and product-specific disclosures;
2. current product and pricing pages;
3. official support documentation;
4. dated company announcements;
5. independent sources only where a primary source cannot answer the question.

Every changing fact receives a verification date. Prices, countries, risk rules and offers are treated as unstable. When official sources conflict, we do not silently choose the more attractive version.

3. Test the commercial path

An affiliate link is checked for:

• a valid HTTPS destination owned by the intended merchant;
• retained attribution or invite parameters;
• the exact benefit displayed to the reader;
• promotion period;
• eligible customer type, products and countries;
• final price or reward condition.

A redirect can pass while the benefit fails. In that case the destination may remain usable, but the offer is labelled “not independently confirmed.” A code name or dashboard label does not substitute for customer-facing terms.

4. Calculate the claim

Percentages are translated into usable amounts. A prop plan is compared through profit target, daily loss and total drawdown, not only its nominal account size. A trading cost includes entry and exit. A spread is distinguished from a commission.

Examples state their assumptions and never imply a guaranteed result.

5. Write the downside before the conclusion

Material limitations appear in the direct answer, eligibility note, comparison or verdict. They are not hidden in a legal footer.

For Kraken Prop, that means explaining the virtual funded structure, fees inside risk limits and country uncertainty. For xStocks, it means stating that the holder is not a shareholder and faces issuer risk.

6. Independent quality gates

Each page is reviewed by roles separate from the writer:

Additional affiliate, accessibility and technical gates are applied where relevant. There is no average. A score of 8.9 in one gate fails the page even if all other scores are 10.

Failed pages are revised and reviewed again. Previous scores are preserved as earlier rounds, not edited upward.

7. Bind the review to the content

The final Markdown file receives a SHA-256 hash. The quality record stores that hash with its scores and findings. A material content change creates a new hash and requires a fresh review.

Mechanical checks then reject placeholders, forbidden punctuation, hard-coded affiliate links outside configuration, invalid structured data and missing affiliate attributes.

8. Update without fake freshness

The “last verified” date changes only when the relevant sources or live path have been checked. A cosmetic edit does not justify a new date.

Where a fact changes, the page, structured data and any related comparison are updated together. Material corrections are documented.