How We Research and Fact-Check Every Guide
Updated July 28, 2026
Updated July 28, 2026
By Morgan Reyes
Every checkable claim on this site is traced to a primary source, and that source is linked in the sentence making the claim rather than collected in a list at the bottom. Claims that cannot be traced are deleted rather than hedged. Industry funding is disclosed next to the finding it paid for.
The byline, "Morgan Reyes," is a pen name. It is not a person you can look up, and we would rather state that here than let the name do work it has not earned. One editor researches, drafts with AI assistance, and runs the verification pass. No veterinarian reviews these pages, and there is no review board.
That combination is deliberate. We would rather publish a page that says plainly what stands behind it than one that borrows authority it does not have.
Research and verification are two separate passes, done in that order, and the second one is where the value is.
The first pass gathers material. The second pass goes back over every specific, checkable thing the first pass produced and asks a single question: did we reach the original, or did we reach somebody's account of the original? That distinction sounds pedantic and it is the difference between most of what has been corrected on this site and what shipped.
Three habits do most of the work.
We verify the most load-bearing claim first, not last. The single claim a page rests on is the one most likely to be wrong, because it is the one that got repeated most and checked least. When it fails, the page needs restructuring rather than a footnote, so finding out early is worth more than finding out thoroughly.
A striking figure that no source will own is treated as evidence against itself. The tell is a citation chain that never terminates: every source cites another source, and the last one cites nobody. When that happens the figure goes, however many places it appears.
When a source will not open, we look for a better source before softening the sentence. A blocked page is usually a routing problem rather than a wall. The paper is often free elsewhere, or the regulator's own document is archived, or the article simply moved. Hedging preserves an unverified claim; substitution replaces it with a verified one.
We don't invent an author or a credential. The pen name above is disclosed rather than dressed up. There is no photograph, no job title and no letters after a name, because there is no person to attach them to.
We don't name a brand as an example of doing it wrong. Label-reading guides on this site show you what to look for on any bag. Where an image would put a brand mark next to a warning, the mark is cropped out.
We don't recommend a product to fill a gap. Most pages here carry no recommendation at all, and on several the page's own evidence argues against one. A guide that concludes a compliant food already covers a nutrient has no business then selling you a supplement for it.
We don't add an image or a video to satisfy a requirement. Where a page format calls for a demonstration video and no authoritative, rights-cleared one exists, the gap stays open and documented instead of being filled with something that borrows credibility from a stranger.
This is the part worth reading, because it is the only evidence that any of the above is real rather than aspirational. Every item below is a mistake this site made, found by its own verification pass, and fixed.
We told readers the wrong veterinary interval for a cat. The cat nutrition checklist advised twice-yearly exams from age seven. The AAHA and AAFP guidelines put seven in a "mature adult" bracket on annual exams, with six-monthly visits starting after ten. Unlike a stale statistic, that error changed what an owner would actually do.
We quoted a regulator until it agreed with us. The grain-free guide trimmed an FDA sentence so its subject shifted from "adverse event numbers by themselves" to "the reports," which made FDA sound more dismissive of a diet link than FDA actually is. The by-product guide did the same thing in the other direction, cutting an AAFCO definition short so the rule read stricter than it is, in a section headed "word for word." Two pages, two different convenient directions, one habit.
We rested an argument on industry-funded authors without saying so. The by-product guide's central source is a veterinary-school post whose authors disclose funding from five major pet-food companies. They disclosed it. We did not pass it on. On a page whose whole purpose is scepticism about pet-food marketing, that omission was the problem.
We cited figures to pages that did not contain them. A label guide's central mechanic was sourced to a regulator's consumer page that never mentions the concept. A case count was cited to the wrong page of the same regulator's site. A survey statistic was attributed to a professional association's page that does not carry it, and the underlying survey turned out to poll practice owners rather than pet owners.
We repeated a number that does not exist. A widely-circulated count of canine heart-disease cases turned out to weld one year's total onto another year's date range. The real figure is higher. While we were checking, an AI answer engine reproduced the wrong version unprompted, which is roughly how the error spread in the first place.
We stated household counts as animal counts. An industry-overview page said "about 71 million dogs and 53 million cats" when both figures counted households. The gap is tens of millions of animals, and it sat in the part of the page most likely to be quoted back.
Here is the same list as a table, so you can go and check any of it:
| What was wrong | Where | What it actually is |
|---|---|---|
| Twice-yearly vet exams advised from age seven | Cat nutrition checklist | Annual through the 7 to 10 bracket; six-monthly starts after 10 |
| An FDA sentence trimmed so its subject changed | Grain-free | FDA's caution applies to "adverse event numbers by themselves," not to "the reports" |
| An AAFCO definition cut before its qualifier | By-products | The rule permits trace amounts "unavoidably in good processing practices" |
| Industry funding behind the central source, undisclosed | By-products | The authors disclose funding from five pet-food companies |
| A label mechanic cited to a page that never mentions it | Reading a label | The concept lives in a different AAFCO document entirely |
| A heart-disease case count repeated from nowhere | Grain-free | The circulating figure welds one year's total to another year's date range |
| Household counts printed as animal counts | State of pet parenting | Both figures count households, not animals |
Bottom line: every row above was found by checking our own pages, not by a reader catching us. A page that lists no corrections is either new or not looking.
Some pages owe a demonstration video and do not have one. We looked for authoritative, rights-cleared footage from veterinary bodies, veterinary schools and university extension services. The closest candidate featured a credentialed specialist but was published by a commercial platform, which would have meant borrowing authority we cannot vouch for. So those pages are missing the video for now.
Some pages owe photographs of the thing they teach you to read. A guide about reading a label should show a label. Stock photography cannot fill that role, because a generic picture of a pet-food bag is decoration rather than evidence.
We cannot yet measure how AI answer engines describe these topics. Checking that requires access this site does not have, so where a research file should record what the engines currently say, it records the questions to ask instead.
Every claim's source is a link in the sentence making it. Click it. If a linked page does not say what we said it says, that is a defect and we would rather hear about it.
Where a page's evidence is genuinely mixed, it says so rather than picking the tidier side. Several guides here end without a clean answer, because several of these questions do not have one yet.
No. Morgan Reyes is a pen name, not a person you can look up, and we would rather tell you that than let you assume otherwise. It is the name this site publishes under.
One editor researches each topic, drafts with AI assistance, and runs the separate verification pass described above before anything goes live. That editor is accountable for every claim on every page.
What the byline is not is a credential. These guides are researched and verified against primary sources, but they are not reviewed by a veterinarian, and there is no veterinary review board behind them. If you need clinical judgement applied to your own animal, that is your vet's job and not this site's.
No, and we would rather say so plainly than imply otherwise. What they are is fact-checked: every checkable claim traced to a primary source, with that source linked at the sentence making the claim. That process catches a great deal, including every error listed above, but it is not clinical review and we do not present it as such.
The test is whether we reached the original document rather than someone's description of it. The study itself, the regulator's own page, AAFCO's own definition.
Reaching a paywalled paper's official abstract counts. Reading a pet-food brand's summary of a study does not, and neither does reading another content site's summary, however reputable.
It comes out. Not softened, not hedged into "some experts suggest," not kept with a caveat buried in a source list.
A hedge preserves an unverified claim while making it look handled, which is worse than deleting it.
Yes, in the body text next to the finding rather than in a footnote. Pet nutrition research is heavily industry-funded, and a study can be well-designed and industry-funded at the same time. Both facts belong in front of the reader.
This site cites an industry-funded trial's findings alongside the disclosure that its authors were employees of the company that paid for it. Citing the result while omitting that is the thing that misleads.
This page describes an editorial process, not veterinary advice. Nothing on this site diagnoses, treats or prescribes for an animal, and no page here is a substitute for examining a specific animal. Talk to your veterinarian about your own pet, particularly before changing a diet, starting a supplement, or acting on anything that looks like a symptom.
