Editorial & Trust Policy

This page sets out how Marlbridge's published study material is written, verified, versioned and corrected, and who is currently accountable for it. It describes the site as it actually operates today, including where that falls short of an ideal — it does not describe an aspiration.

Editorial policy

Marlbridge publishes study guides, revision notes and practice material written against the specific, named examination-board syllabus each resource declares (see its "Syllabus" and board labels). Most resources (6,123 of 6,511, about 94%) carry the Marlbridge Academic Team byline, an organisational credit rather than a person. The other 388 are credited to a named member of the Marlbridge teaching team, by name on the resource itself and linked to their own author page (see "Authorship" below). New content is added topic by topic as it is written; pages are not published as placeholders and then backfilled.

Academic review policy

Marlbridge does not state a blanket, non-attributed claim that every published resource has been reviewed by a teacher. Every resource is written against the official syllabus document for the board, qualification and syllabus code it declares, and is checked against that document before publication, whichever byline it carries (see "Editorial policy" above and "Copyright and original questions" below). Separately, many resources name a subject teacher in a "Reviewed by [name]" line. On Marlbridge, that line means the named teacher is the subject teacher accountable for that page's accuracy: they answer questions and corrections about it, and the page is theirs to put right. It is not a record of a dated, line-by-line check, and the site does not claim one (owner's decision of 1 October 2026). The named teacher is always a different person from the author, and their own profile lists the subject and exam board of every page they are named on; both rules are checked at build time on every release. At present a named accountable teacher is shown on 2,256 study resources and 12 articles; every other resource is recorded as awaiting one. A resource without this line names no accountable teacher; its accuracy rests on its own citation of the official syllabus and on the corrections process below, which is how errors are caught and fixed on any resource, credited reviewer or not.

"Checked by Marlbridge Academic Team"

Some resources that are still awaiting a "Reviewed by" teacher carry a separate line, "Checked by Marlbridge Academic Team", with a date. It means that on that date the page was checked against its official specification: its content, terminology and tier or stage labels were compared with the awarding body's published specification, every calculation and worked answer was re-worked, and any errors found were corrected. Where the board's full subject guide is licensed rather than public (some IB subjects), the line says the check was made against the board's public course documents instead. The check was carried out by our academic team with AI assistance, as described under Responsible use of AI. It is not a teacher review: no individual teacher is credited, and the page remains recorded as awaiting a named reviewer.

On the advanced-course (US curriculum) study pages under /advanced-course-resources/, the same line means the page was checked in the same way against the College Board Course and Exam Description for the 2026–27 school year and its published clarifications.

Syllabus verification policy

Every syllabus summary and official-source citation on Marlbridge is checked directly against the awarding body's own current published specification and qualification pages — never against a tutoring site, a forum, a search-engine snippet, or general background knowledge. Each syllabus entry records the exact official URL used and the date it was checked (visible as "Verified" text on the relevant qualification page). Where a syllabus has not yet been checked this way, the page says so honestly ("being verified") rather than guessing at content.

Legacy and revised specifications

Where a board runs two versions of a specification side by side during a transition (an outgoing "legacy" code and an incoming "revised" code), Marlbridge records both codes, their exact first -teaching and final-exam dates, and which one currently applies to a new starter — this is called out explicitly wherever it applies, not merged into a single ambiguous code.

Corrections policy

If you find a factual error, an outdated syllabus reference, or a broken citation anywhere on Marlbridge, please report it — this is the single most useful thing a reader can do for the site. Use the Report a correction form, or write to hello@marlbridge.com with the page URL and what looks wrong. Reports are read and, where the correction is confirmed against the official source, the page is updated and its "Verified" date is refreshed. Marlbridge does not currently publish a public changelog of individual corrections; the "Last updated"/"Verified" date on each page is the record of when it was last checked.

Responsible use of AI

Some of the drafting, editing, validation tooling and site engineering behind Marlbridge is produced with the assistance of AI systems, under human direction and review. Academic facts — syllabus codes, specification content, assessment structure — are always checked against the awarding body's own official source before publication, regardless of how a draft was produced; an AI system's own background knowledge is never treated as a citable source for an academic claim on this site. Original practice questions and worked examples are reviewed for correctness before publication in the same way as any other content.

Content versioning

Each resource and syllabus page carries a verification or "last updated" date rather than a formal version number. When an examination board revises a specification (a new syllabus code, a new examination series, or a legacy-to-revised transition), Marlbridge updates the affected pages to reflect the current specification and records the change in that page's date and, where relevant, in its stated applicability years. Superseded specification content is not silently deleted where a legacy code remains examinable — see "Legacy and revised specifications" above.

Copyright and original questions

Marlbridge does not reproduce awarding-body specification text, past-exam questions, or mark schemes. Syllabus summaries on this site are original explanations of what a specification covers, written from the official document rather than copied from it. Practice questions published on Marlbridge are wholly original and written for the relevant syllabus — they are not drawn from, or a rewording of, any board's past papers. Where a resource discusses or links to a board's own past papers, it directs readers to the board's own official source rather than reproducing the material itself. Each practice-question resource is credited like any other resource: 131 of the 2,126 name a teacher, and the rest carry the Marlbridge Academic Team byline.

Authorship and accountability

Of the 6,511 published resources, 6,123 (about 94%) and all 15 articles carry the Marlbridge Academic Team byline — an organisational credit, not a person; this byline is marked in the page's structured data as an Organization, never as a Person. The other 388 resources carry a real, named author — one of 8 named teachers from the Marlbridge teaching team, credited on the resource page and linked to their own author page, which states only verified facts (role, years of teaching experience, previous schools) sourced from a cited public source and dated when it was last checked. Being credited as an author is a separate role from being named in a "Reviewed by" line: that line names the subject teacher accountable for a page's accuracy, never the author, and it is not a record of a dated, line-by-line check (see "Academic review policy" above).