How we review content
Every article on this site goes through two checks before it publishes, and they are looking for different things. One asks whether the law is stated correctly. The other asks whether the clinical claims are defensible. Neither reviewer writes the article they check.
The two reviews
Source verification
Every statement about the Fair Housing Act, the ADA, the Air Carrier Access Act or a state statute is checked against the primary source, not against another article. The reviewer confirms the source says what the sentence claims it says, and that the sentence does not quietly widen it.
Clinical review
A licensed mental health professional checks anything the article says about conditions, symptoms, the therapeutic role of a companion animal, and what a clinician can and cannot do. This review exists to stop the two failures that are common in this niche: overstating what an animal treats, and describing an evaluation as a formality.
What a reviewer is allowed to do
A reviewer is not a proofreader and is not there to approve. Any reviewer on this site can:
- send an article back for rewriting;
- require a citation for a specific sentence, or require the sentence be cut;
- strike a claim outright, including a claim that is good for our business;
- block publication.
None of those decisions is overridden by anyone on the commercial side. Reviewers are paid for the review, not per article approved, and they have no role in sales or in the pricing of the ID card or the letter add-on.
What the byline means
Each article shows who wrote it, who reviewed it, and the date of the most recent review. The reviewer named on an article read that specific version. When an article is substantially updated, it is reviewed again and the date changes. A review date on this site is a record of work done, not a badge applied at publication.
What triggers a re-review
- A change in federal rules or agency guidance: within 30 days, for every article affected.
- A change in a state’s law: within 30 days, for that state’s guide.
- A reader correction we confirm: immediately.
- Nothing at all: every article is reviewed at least once a year regardless.
Where this process can fail
Two places, and it is more useful to name them than to claim they do not exist. Guidance changes faster than a yearly cycle catches, which is why the 30 day rule and reader corrections matter more than the annual sweep. And state law varies in ways a national article cannot fully capture, which is why our state guides describe the process rather than promise an outcome, and why nothing on this site is a substitute for advice from an attorney or a clinician who knows your situation.
Who reviews
Clinical review is carried out by three clinicians licensed in Texas: Dr. Lori H. (PhD, LPC-S, NCC), Amber B. (LPC-S) and Gina M. (LPC-S). Each article names the one who read that version, with the date. Their credentials and the way to verify them against the state board are on our clinicians.
Source verification is carried out against the agencies’ own published text rather than by a named attorney, and the pages say so: this site fact-checks the law, it does not give legal advice. Where a question turns on facts only an attorney can weigh, the article says that instead of answering it. See the disclaimer.
Last reviewed: 8 September 2026. See also our editorial policy.