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 are written by a named member of the Marlbridge teaching team, credited by name on the resource itself and linked to their own author page (see "Authorship" below); the remainder carry the Marlbridge Academic Team byline, an organisational credit used for collaboratively-produced material rather than any one person's independent work. 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 by its named author before publication (see "Editorial policy" above and "Copyright and original content" below). Separately, Marlbridge operates a distinct, accountable, named second-reviewer step — a named reviewer, different from the author, credited by name on the page — for resources where that specific accountable record exists; this is enforced at build time, so a page only ever displays "Reviewed by [name]" if a real reviewer record exists for a real person the site designates a genuine reviewer, and the underlying data is validated on every release. As of 5 September 2026, this named second-reviewer credit has been completed for a small number of resources and is being extended over time. A resource without this named credit is not described as reviewed by a teacher; its accuracy rests on its named author's 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.

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. 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, written by the Marlbridge Academic Team 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.

Authorship and accountability

Most published resources carry a real, named author — a member of 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. A minority of resources and articles instead carry the Marlbridge Academic Team byline — an organisational credit, not a person, used where content was produced collaboratively rather than by one individual; this byline is marked in the page's structured data as an Organization, never as a Person. Being credited as an author is a separate role from being a reviewer: a reviewer is a second, distinct, accountable check on already-written content, and Marlbridge only ever displays a review claim where that genuine second check has actually taken place (see "Academic review policy" above).