Editorial Policy

1. Who writes Techpulzo

Techpulzo is written and published by one person: Muthu. There is no editorial team, no staff of writers, and no freelance contributor pool. Every article on this site has the same author. If that changes — if a second person starts genuinely writing, fact-checking, or reviewing content here — this page will be updated to reflect it.

2. What actually qualifies him to write this

Muthu works as a software developer (Java, backend systems). That's a real, verifiable professional credential, and it's the basis for anything this site says about software, apps, and how technology works under the hood.

It is not a credential in personal finance, tax or legal procedure, career coaching, or biometrics — topics this site also covers. Articles in those areas are researched against primary sources rather than written from professional standing in the field. Where that distinction matters, we say so in the piece itself rather than letting a byline imply expertise that isn't there.

3. How an article gets published

Techpulzo doesn't have a multi-person newsroom, so we don't claim one. What we do have is a real, sequential process — the same person, doing a different job at each step, with actual distance in time between them:

1. Draft. The article gets written.
2. Research. Any claim that's a number, a law, a regulation, or a "how it works" mechanism needs a named, linkable source — a government portal, a vendor's own documentation, an RBI circular — before it's allowed to stay in the piece.
3. Self fact-check. A second pass, after a cooling-off gap, that checks every factual and numeric claim against its source. This happens in a separate sitting from drafting, not as a quick re-read.
4. Self editorial review. A pass focused on structure — whether the piece delivers on what its title promises, and whether it's padded out with filler.
5. Publish. With an honest byline pointing to the author page.

We're direct about the limits of this: sequential self-review is a genuine quality practice, but it is not independent editorial oversight. We don't call it that, and we don't put a "reviewed by" or "fact-checked by" credit on any article, because there's no second person behind that claim today.

4. Fact-checking, honestly stated

Going forward, claims involving numbers, law, regulation, or mechanism ("how X works") are checked against a named primary source before publishing. Not every article already published meets that bar — some of the catalog predates this policy and cites no source at all. We're working backward through it to add sourcing rather than claiming it was always there. A false "we fact-check everything" statement would be worse than no statement, since it's disprovable by anyone who reads an unsourced older article.

5. Corrections

When a factual error is found, the article is corrected and its "last updated" date reflects the change. For material errors on regulated topics (tax, credit, employment law), the article itself carries a short note on what changed and when. We don't run a separate public corrections log — at this site's current size (one author, under 50 live articles), a log that's mostly empty would read as a checkbox exercise rather than a real signal, so we've held off on building one until there's enough history to make it meaningful.

6. Questions

If you spot something wrong, or want to know more about how a specific article was put together, contact us at rajamuthu107@gmail.com or through the contact page.