GetInstantResolve
Editorial standards
Public guidance should be practical, calm and specific about what is known, what is disputed and what depends on local law or procedure.
Official source → checked context → bounded next-step guidance.
Answer first
The practical next step belongs near the top before long background explanation.
Separate facts from allegations
A response should distinguish agreed facts, disputed facts, opinions and assumptions.
No automatic escalation
Escalation guidance should consider urgency, evidence, cost, response and local process rather than pushing every dispute toward court.
Do not manufacture precision
Deadlines, monetary limits, filing requirements, court names and appeal steps should not be guessed from memory or imported from another jurisdiction. If the current official source has not been verified, the wording should say so.
Use synthetic examples
Worked examples are fictional and labelled. They are not outcome predictions.
AI-assisted drafting still needs source discipline
AI can help organise and draft public guidance, but it must not be treated as the authority for a legal rule or formal process. Jurisdiction-sensitive claims should remain traceable to the underlying official source.
Keep product claims bounded
Public copy must not imply that GetInstantResolve mediates, gives personalised legal advice, forces the other side to respond, guarantees settlement or automatically chooses litigation or another formal escalation route.
Update dates only after substantive review
A reviewed or modified date should move when the underlying guidance has genuinely been reviewed or materially changed, not merely because styling or unrelated code changed.