Editorial Policy

1. The Five Pillars of Our Evaluation Framework

Every review, head-to-head showdown, and buyer guide published on AI Porn Radar adheres strictly to five core journalistic and technical principles:

1. Empirical Verification Over Marketing Claims:

   We never review software from promotional press releases, vendor whitepapers, or third-party endorsements. Every feature, generation speed, and prompt capability is tested directly on active accounts by our technical staff.

2. Self-Funded Retail Accounts:

   Vendors are not permitted to supply “whitelisted” VIP review accounts with expedited server priority or artificial credit bonuses. We purchase retail subscriptions anonymously using standard consumer payment methods to reflect the exact user experience encountered by paying customers.

3. Quantitative Scoring Calibration:

   Our 5.0-scale ratings reflect a transparent, weighted formula across five critical operational dimensions: Hardware Latency & Queue Speed (25%), Model Fidelity & Anatomical Consistency (25%), Prompt Freedom & NSFW Openness (20%), Token Economics & Pricing Fairness (15%), and Privacy & Statement Discreetness (15%).

4. Controlled Head-to-Head Testing:

   In our head-to-head VS battle reviews, both competing platforms are tested synchronously across identical prompt structures, hardware profiles, and network connections. Winner declarations are based strictly on measured technical performance.

5. Strict Zero Tolerance for Harmful Media:

   We enforce an unbending moral and legal boundary: any platform that permits or facilitates non-consensual deepfakes of real private persons, underage depictions, or non-consensual imagery is permanently barred from our directory and referred to relevant legal authorities.

2. Affiliate Disclosure & FTC Compliance

In full compliance with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidelines (16 CFR Part 255) and international advertising transparency laws, we openly declare that AI Porn Radar maintains affiliate relationships with several software platforms featured in our directories. When users click outbound links (formatted through our secure tracking gateway, e.g., /out/{slug}/) and complete a purchase, we may receive a referral commission.

However, we maintain an unyielding firewall between business monetization and editorial verdicts:

• Affiliate commission rates have zero bearing on benchmark rankings, star scores, or winner selections;
• We frequently assign lower scores or cautionary advisories to high-paying affiliate tools when our technical tests reveal severe queue lag, high token consumption, or poor model fidelity;
• Readers pay the exact same price (and often receive exclusive discounts) when utilizing our referral links.

3. Continuous Re-Testing & Monthly Audits

Generative AI tools evolve on weekly cycles: models migrate from SD 1.5 to SDXL and Flux architectures, token allowances shift, and billing processors change. To ensure our readers make decisions based on current facts:

• Our staff conducts monthly re-benchmarking passes across our top 50 directory listings and radar blog guides;
• Whenever an established platform releases a major model checkpoint or updates its billing structure, our team re-runs our 72-hour benchmark protocol;
• All published articles display the active operating year (2026) alongside verified timestamps indicating the date of the latest laboratory pass.

4. Corrections Policy & Right of Rebuttal

Accuracy is paramount. If a software creator or community member identifies a factual error — such as an updated credit pricing tier, a newly implemented payment method, or a patched privacy vulnerability — they may submit documented technical proof to our editorial desk. We review all correction requests within 48 business hours, and verified updates are logged transparently on the relevant page.