Testing methodology and verification standards
What we check, how we verify sources, and what our guides do not claim to test.
Quick answer: how does ArenaLore Guide test its content?
We use a documented editorial verification process: define the question, identify claims that could change, consult primary sources, compare explanations with published rules, check the internal logic of examples, and record the review date. Our launch articles are primarily desk-researched explainers. They are not presented as hands-on product lab tests.
1. Decide what is being evaluated
For each guide we identify whether it explains a stable concept, a potentially changing game mechanic, a tournament format, or a subjective learning suggestion. We do not describe an opinion as a laboratory measurement or a broad rule as a confirmed feature of every game version.
2. Use sources suited to the claim
We prioritize official game sites, official in-game learning materials when available, publisher statements for publisher facts, and tournament organizers for event formats and dates. A dated statement is tied to its publication context; a link to an official homepage does not by itself verify every detail of an article.
3. Separate stable concepts from changing facts
Concepts such as coordination, objective control, and resource trade-offs are useful teaching frameworks. Prices, character changes, platforms, tournament schedules, modes, and current balance are time-sensitive and must be checked again when needed. We avoid presenting old patch or event details as current information.
4. Check learning examples for clarity
We review examples against the question being answered: is the goal clear, are assumptions stated, and is the suggested next step realistic for a newcomer? Example strategies illustrate concepts rather than guaranteeing wins. Results vary with skill, opponents, mode, and updates.
5. Hands-on play and performance measurements
Unless an article explicitly documents the tested game version, device or platform, test procedure, observation date, and repeatable results, it should be understood as educational desk research, not verified firsthand gameplay testing. We do not invent benchmark scores, win rates, firsthand quotations, or screenshots of tests we have not performed.
6. Review, dates, and changes
Our articles show an editorial review date and link to relevant background sources. A review means the material received an editorial check at that time, not continuous monitoring. When meaningful rules or source changes come to our attention, we reassess the affected text and update the date when a new review takes place.
7. Corrections and dispute handling
A correction request should identify a specific statement, page, and supporting evidence. We assess the original wording, review the strongest available sources, correct confirmed errors, and add a short note for material changes. The Editorial Policy explains the editorial standard.
8. AI tools, images, and editorial responsibility
Original concept images were generated for this publication rather than taken from the games. AI-assisted workflows may help with drafting and checking structure, but must not be treated as independent verification of factual claims. Publishing responsibility rests with MATHEW SANTIAGO ANDREWS, identified on the About Us page.
9. Independence and limitations
We are not Riot Games, a developer partner, a publisher support desk, a live sports data provider, or a certified hardware test laboratory. We do not claim access to internal analytics, unreleased content, game accounts, or proprietary event data. Always verify time-sensitive details from official channels.
Related methods and references
Read our Editorial Policy, Sources and Verification, and FAQ. For questions or correction requests, email info@arenaloreguide.com.