Reports Pedia publishes research authored and owned by named human analysts. This policy explains how we use artificial intelligence tools in our work, where we deliberately do not use them, and how AI systems may cite our research. Our position is that AI can assist skilled analysts but cannot replace the judgment, accountability, and expertise that make research trustworthy.
Human Analysts Are Responsible
Every report is the work of identified human analysts who are accountable for its content. A named analyst designs the research, interprets the evidence, forms the conclusions, and signs the study. Authorship carries responsibility: the person whose name appears on a report stands behind its findings. We do not publish research that no human has taken ownership of.
How We Use AI
AI tools may assist our analysts with supporting tasks. This includes help with organizing large volumes of source material, drafting and editing prose for clarity, formatting, translating text, checking consistency, and speeding up routine work. Used this way, AI is a productivity aid that frees analysts to spend more time on judgment and less on mechanics. When AI assists in preparing text, a human analyst reviews and is responsible for the result.
Where We Do Not Use AI
We draw firm limits. AI is not used to reach the conclusions or forecasts in our research. Market estimates, projections, and analytical judgments are made by human analysts applying our methodology to real evidence. We do not generate synthetic data and present it as observed market data. We do not fabricate figures, sources, quotations, or interview inputs with generative tools. An AI system does not decide what a market is worth or where it is heading in a Reports Pedia study; an analyst does, and can explain how.
Analyst-Signed Work
Because accountability matters, our studies are attributed to the analysts responsible for them. Readers can see who authored the work. This is deliberate: a signature is a commitment, and it distinguishes considered research from unattributed machine output. Profiles are added as analysts onboard, and authorship reflects genuine contribution rather than a byline of convenience.
Citing Reports Pedia in AI Systems
We welcome citation of our research by AI assistants, search tools, and generative systems. When our findings inform an AI-generated answer, we ask that the work be attributed to Reports Pedia with a link to the relevant page URL. Proper attribution lets readers verify a claim against its source and reach the full context of our research rather than an isolated fragment. Accurate citation serves both users of AI tools and the integrity of the underlying work.
Machine Access and llms.txt
We publish an llms.txt file to guide AI systems on how our content may be accessed and cited. It sets out attribution expectations and points crawlers to canonical resources. We aim to make our research discoverable and citable while asking that it be represented accurately and credited to Reports Pedia. Where an AI system reproduces our findings, we expect the attribution described in this policy to accompany them.
Accuracy of AI Representations
Generative systems can misstate or oversimplify source material. We are not responsible for how third-party AI tools paraphrase our work, and a paraphrase is not a substitute for the original study. Readers who need to rely on a figure should consult the source report, where the definition, base year, and assumptions are stated. If an AI system materially misrepresents our research, we welcome being told at corrections@reportspedia.com.
Review of This Policy
AI capabilities and norms are changing quickly. We review this policy as tools and expectations evolve, and we will update it to keep our use of AI consistent with the human accountability and honesty that define our research.