We are a small independent site, not a newsroom. We do not have a separate fact-checking desk or a multi-person review chain, and we will not describe a process we do not operate. What follows is what we actually do.
Three tiers of claim
We treat claims differently depending on how well we can verify them, and we try to signal which tier a claim belongs to in the writing itself.
| Tier | What it covers | How it is verified | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Verifiable in our code | Combo windows, cooldowns, thresholds, level counts, scoring values, control mappings | Read directly from the game source before publication | High |
| Our design position | Strategy advice, design principles, what makes a game work | Derived from building and playing these games; presented as our view | Stated as opinion |
| External to us | Arcade history, reaction time ranges, browser API behaviour | Described in general terms with limits stated; contested topics flagged | Qualified |
Tier 1: claims about our games
This is the great majority of the specific claims on the site, and it is where we are most confident. When a guide says Pixel Blaster's combo window is 2.2 seconds, or that Neon Snake Arena's speed steps at lengths 10, 20, 35 and 55, those figures are read from the source code.
Before a game page or guide is published, every numeric claim in it is checked against the implementation. When a game is rebalanced, the affected pages are updated in the same release.
Tier 2: our design positions
Statements like “the safe strategy should be the low-scoring one” or “jump onto approaching platforms” are judgements formed from building and playing these games. They are not empirical findings.
We try to write these as positions rather than as facts, and to explain the reasoning so you can evaluate it rather than take it on authority.
Tier 3: claims about the outside world
This is where we are most careful, because it is where we have the least ability to verify.
- Arcade history is presented as approximate general-interest background. We describe eras and design ideas rather than making precise claims about specific companies, products, dates or people.
- Reaction time figures are given as broad ranges with the caveat that browser measurements include device and display latency we cannot correct for.
- Browser technology is described as of the time of writing, with a note that the platform changes.
- Contested science — most notably cognitive transfer from action games — is flagged as contested. We do not pick a side on it.
What we do not do
- We do not cite sources we have not read.
- We do not attach numbers to claims to make them sound more precise than they are.
- We do not present a contested finding as settled because it makes a better article.
- We do not fabricate statistics, quotes, studies or expert opinions.
Reporting an error
If you find something wrong, email hello@retroarcadehub.xyz with the page URL and what you believe is incorrect. Include a source if you have one.
We investigate every report. Corrections are handled as described in our editorial policy: minor fixes are made silently, meaning-changing corrections update the page's updated date, and significant corrections carry a visible note.