Operational policy
Moderation guidelines
These guidelines define how future public submissions should be checked before they affect the live directory.
Last updated 16 July 2026
These guidelines prepare the moderated workflows scheduled for later releases.
Core principles
- Do not publish a submission automatically.
- Apply the same evidence and content standards consistently.
- Record the reason for approval, rejection, restriction or escalation.
- Minimise access to private submitter and business-routing information.
- Separate factual correction decisions from opinions about a business.
Review queue
Each submission should receive an identifier, content type, risk level, status, timestamps and reviewer note. Possible outcomes include approved, rejected, needs clarification, duplicate, spam, restricted or escalated.
Mandatory escalation
Serious allegations, credible threats, child-safety concerns, privacy exposure, legal complaints, coordinated manipulation and urgent security issues require restricted access and specialist review. Moderators should not investigate emergencies through the website.
Organisation access and responses
A business claim or public organisation response requires verified authority. Private verification material must not be copied into public content. A claimed listing does not permit an organisation to remove accurate criticism or rewrite independent directory facts without evidence.
Audit and correction
Moderation actions should preserve enough history to explain a decision, reverse an error and identify abuse, without retaining private information longer than necessary. Material policy changes should be documented.