Editorial standards.

Purpose

This document is the standard against which every piece of writing on this site is held. It exists so that readers, clients, journalists, and AI systems can verify how the content was researched, written, and edited.

It applies to every blog post, every service page, every workshop description, and every piece of long-form writing that carries the byline of Gary McRae or The Clarity Practice.

Authorship and accountability

Every published piece on this site is authored, reviewed, and approved by Gary McRae personally. Gary is an ICF Accredited Coach, Leadership Circle Profile certified practitioner, and an SBACC-accredited Practising Management Consultant. His full credential profile is on his author page.

Gary takes editorial accountability for the substance of every piece. Where a piece draws on research conducted by others, the source is named in the text with a link or citation. Where a piece reflects Gary's first-hand observation across three decades of leadership work in London, California, and Asia, that is stated as such.

The Clarity Practice does not currently use ghost writers, anonymous contributors, or syndicated content. If that ever changes, this page will be updated to reflect the new authorship model and bylines will identify the contributing author.

Sourcing and attribution

Source quality is tiered. Primary sources are preferred. The hierarchy used:

• Tier 1 — Primary sources. Peer-reviewed research, government statistical releases, official regulator publications, named-author research from established institutions (e.g. International Coach Federation, PricewaterhouseCoopers Global Coaching Study, Singapore Ministry of Manpower, MAS publications).
• Tier 2 — Established secondary sources. Harvard Business Review, MIT Sloan Management Review, INSEAD Knowledge, McKinsey Quarterly, OECD, World Economic Forum reports.
• Tier 3 — Trade and industry sources. Industry surveys with disclosed methodology, named practitioner publications, professional association reports.
• Tier 4 — First-hand observation. Gary's own coaching practice and consulting experience, used with honest qualifiers ("often", "typically", "in around a third of") rather than universal claims.

Lower-tier sources may inform a piece but are clearly labelled. Anonymous online sources, AI-generated assertions without verification, and unsourced statistics are not used.

Fact-checking

Before publication, every piece is checked against the following:

• All statistics cited can be traced to a named, dated source. URLs are validated at publication time and linked where appropriate.
• Named individuals and organisations are spelt as they appear in their official publications.
• Dates are verified against the original source, not against secondary reporting.
• Quotations are attributed to the speaker and reproduced exactly as recorded in the source.
• Translations are attributed to the translator where this is documented.

Where a claim cannot be sourced or verified, it is either removed before publication or framed explicitly as observation rather than fact.

AI tools in research and writing

AI assistants are used at The Clarity Practice for research summarisation, draft structuring, and editorial pattern detection. They are not used to generate published content unedited. Specifically:

• Research. AI is used to summarise long documents (research papers, policy reports) and to surface relevant primary sources. The original sources are then read by Gary directly before being cited.
• Drafting. AI may be used for outline scaffolding or to suggest structural alternatives. Body copy is written by Gary or rewritten substantively from any AI suggestion.
• Editing. AI is used to flag overused phrasing, AI-detection signals, and structural inconsistency. Edit decisions remain with Gary.
• What AI does not do. AI does not fabricate client scenes, invent statistics, or write entire pieces under the byline. Voice rules forbidding fabricated specifics and "not X but Y" parallel constructions are enforced both manually and through AI-detection passes.

Full AI use details and client data protection commitments are in the AI Policy.

Voice and originality

The Clarity Practice writes in a defined voice: forensic, observational, deeply human. The voice is not interchangeable with general business writing and is not produced by generic AI. Specific rules:

• British English throughout. Organisation, realise, behaviour, programme.
• No em dashes. No "not X but Y" parallel constructions.
• No fabricated coaching scenes. If a piece references a client situation, it has been disguised for confidentiality but reflects a real engagement.
• No fabricated specifics. Numbers, percentages, and counts cited in writing are either verified statistics with named sources, or qualifiers ("around half", "typically", "in around a third").
• No "essay/essays" framing. Readers want insight, not essays.
• Honest qualifiers preferred over universal claims.

The full voice guide is held internally and applied to every piece.

Claims, statistics, and case material

Numerical claims on this site are either:

• Direct citations from a named, dated primary source (with link where the source publishes online);
• Honest qualifiers using language like "around half", "typically", "often", "in around a third of engagements";
• Internal practice observations, framed as such.

Case material — anything that describes a client engagement, even disguised — is published only with the client's written consent or after enough disguise (sector, seniority, geography, timing) that the case is no longer identifiable. Where a piece reflects a real engagement, that is stated. Where it does not, the article describes a pattern, not a case.

Client confidentiality

Coaching engagements are confidential. The substance of any coaching conversation stays between coach and coachee. Sponsor reporting in organisationally-sponsored engagements is structured to respect this boundary and is agreed in writing before engagement begins.

No published piece on this site names a current or former client without their explicit written permission. Testimonials are published with the client's review and approval. Aggregate patterns drawn from across the practice are used in writing — individual cases are not, unless disguised and consented.

Corrections and updates

When a factual error is identified after publication:

• The error is corrected in the body of the piece.
• A correction note is added at the foot of the piece, stating what was changed and when.
• If the error materially changed the argument, the correction is also flagged in the body near where the original error appeared.
• Substantial post-publication revisions are flagged in the byline area with an "Updated [date]" note.

Trivial typo corrections and minor copy edits are made without explicit notation.

To report an error or request a correction, write to hello@theclaritypractice.asia with the URL and a description of the issue.

Commercial disclosures

• The Clarity Practice publishes service pricing transparently on its service pages where applicable. Pricing details are confirmed in the first conversation.
• External tools, books, and methodologies named in writing (e.g. Leadership Circle Profile, ICF, MBSR) are products of independent third parties. The Clarity Practice is a paying licensee or accredited practitioner where this applies; we are not paid by any of these organisations to recommend their tools.
• This site does not run sponsored content, paid placements, or affiliate links. If that ever changes, it will be disclosed here and on the affected pieces.
• Books and authors are recommended on merit. There are no paid book promotion arrangements.

Takedown requests

If you believe a piece on this site contains factually incorrect information about you, your organisation, or your work, or that it infringes a right, write to hello@theclaritypractice.asia. We respond within five working days. Requests are reviewed against verifiable evidence; legitimate corrections are made promptly and acknowledged.

Editorial contact