How we verify every claim.
Every regulatory statement on this site traces to a primary source before it publishes. Here is the standard we hold, what we commit to, and the proof you can check yourself.
The standard. This site makes claims about controlling rules: FAR Part 31, the DFARS, the Cost Accounting Standards, the DCAM, the implementing CFR, and DCAA guidance. A claim about a rule is only as reliable as the source behind it. So every regulatory claim here is anchored to the primary source. The rule itself, not a summary of it, not a vendor characterization of it, not a remembered version of it. When a secondary account and the primary source disagree, the primary source governs. We read the rule first, and we cite the rule, not the retelling.
Four standards every claim meets.
The source is named correctly. The clause, report, or rule we cite matches its actual citation and title. A clause that does not say what we claim cannot support the sentence that rests on it.
The figure is traceable. Every threshold, penalty multiplier, and statistic points to a specific place in the cited authority. If we cannot show where the number lives in the FAR, the DFARS, the CAS, or the source document, the number does not run.
The framing matches the source. The claim says what the rule says, in the sense the rule means it. Common practice is labeled as practice, not as mandate. A proposed change is labeled as proposed, not as effective. The audience deserves the distinction the rule actually draws.
An unverifiable citation comes out. A defensible claim with no citation beats a claim propped up by a source that does not support it. One bad citation discounts every good one beside it, and on a federal contract that is the difference between a finding you win and one you lose.
Standards are easy to claim. So we publish the evidence.
Corrections, in full. When a re-read finds a claim that no longer holds, we correct it and publish the change with the citation that drove it. Every entry pairs the old wording with the new. See the corrections log.
A verification date on the work. As articles clear a primary-source re-read, they carry the date they were last verified, so you are not trusting a claim of rigor. You can see when the work was last checked.
The questions we have not resolved. Where the rule is silent and credible practitioners diverge, we publish the question, our reading, and the dissent, instead of manufacturing certainty. Each one names the governing subsection and the agency that owns it, so you can weigh our reading against the source yourself. See the open questions.
Why we publish this. Most sites ask you to trust the author. We would rather show you the standard and let you check the work. It is also how a careful reader tells verified analysis from confident-sounding filler, which is the gap that matters when your books have to survive a DCAA audit.
If you find a claim on this site that does not trace to its source, tell us. Use the Ask Us form, or write to info@amerifusionconsulting.com.
Found a claim that does not trace?
Tell us where it is. We re-read it against the primary source and, if it does not hold, we correct it and post the change to the public log.
Flag a claim