What this policy covers
- Who writes – every article has a human author who lives ADHD-spectrum executive function struggles (diagnosed or not).
- How we research – minimum three authoritative external citations per article.
- Who reviews – clinical claims checked against current research and named ADHD specialists.
- What we won’t publish – AI-generated filler, unsourced advice, productivity-bro shame loops.
- How we correct – visible correction notes when we get something wrong.
Our editorial principles
1. Lived experience first
Every FOCO writer lives the experience FOCO writes about – ADHD-diagnosed, late-diagnosed, undiagnosed-but-recognizing-themselves, or fellow travelers with the executive function struggles ADHD overlaps with. We write from inside the experience, not as outside observers.
The founder herself has not pursued formal diagnosis – and we say so on the founders page. The diagnostic label doesn’t determine whether the wall is real. Millions of adults hit task initiation paralysis without ever entering a clinical assessment room. They are not less qualified to write about it.
This changes the voice: we don’t say “people with ADHD often struggle to start tasks.” We say “you cannot start. Here is why.” The validation is in the framing.
2. Clinical claims need clinical sources
If we make a claim about how ADHD brains work – dopamine deficits, executive function impairment, time blindness, working memory limits – that claim is sourced from peer-reviewed research, NIMH, CHADD, or named ADHD specialists (Russell Barkley, Edward Hallowell, Thomas Brown, Sari Solden, William Dodson, Tracy Otsuka, and similar).
Citations appear inline as outbound links. Minimum three per article. Every claim that goes beyond personal experience gets one.
3. We say what we don’t know
When the research is ambiguous, we say so. When something works for some ADHD adults but not others, we say so. When a technique helps with one ADHD trait but not another, we name the trait.
Hedged honesty beats false certainty. Readers can smell a confident overstatement from a mile away.
4. Zero AI-generated content
No FOCO article is generated by ChatGPT, Claude, or any AI tool. We use AI for research assistance – finding sources, drafting outlines, checking grammar – but every word in the final published article is written or substantively rewritten by a human ADHD writer.
The reason: AI writes ADHD content the way most non-ADHD writers do – generic, hedged, drowned in disclaimers, missing the somatic details that make readers feel seen. We can’t ship that.
5. No productivity-bro shame
We don’t tell ADHD readers to “just be more disciplined” or “build better habits.” We don’t deploy streaks designed to punish. We don’t frame ADHD as a productivity failure that proper systems can solve.
The framing throughout FOCO content: ADHD is a neurological difference with documented brain-level impairments. The fixes are external scaffolding – not willpower upgrades.
6. We name clinicians where we cite them
When an article references a specific expert’s work – Russell Barkley’s executive function model, William Dodson’s rejection sensitive dysphoria framing, Edward Hallowell’s “VAST” reframing – we name them and link to their work or a reputable summary of it.
This serves readers who want to go deeper. It also keeps us honest: we cannot rephrase someone’s idea as if it were our own.
How we research an article
Step 1: Identify the question
What does an ADHD reader actually need to know on this topic? We start from search intent – what someone Googling this query is trying to solve – not from what’s easiest to write.
Step 2: Pull primary sources
For clinical topics, we pull from NIMH, CHADD, ADDitude (which fact-checks rigorously), peer-reviewed journals (J. Atten. Disord., J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry, etc.), and the major ADHD specialists named above. For lifestyle topics, we pull from named ADHD adults writing publicly about their experience.
Step 3: Cross-check claims
If a single source makes a claim, we verify it elsewhere before publishing it as fact. Outlier claims that one source makes alone get flagged as “one researcher argues” rather than presented as consensus.
Step 4: Write from experience + research
The final article integrates clinical grounding with first-person ADHD experience. The voice is direct, validating, and concrete. No metaphors-only paragraphs; every section names what to actually do.
Step 5: Internal review
Every article is reviewed by at least one other ADHD-living team member before publish. They check: does this validate or shame? Does it source claims? Does it tell the reader something useful they could not have Googled in five minutes?
Who reviews FOCO content
Currently the founder reviews all content. As we grow, we are recruiting ADHD clinicians (a psychiatrist or psychologist with ADHD specialty) to review clinical articles before publish. Reviewer names will appear on articles once we have them.
If you are an ADHD clinician interested in reviewing content, support@tryfoco.com.
What we won’t publish
Affiliate-driven app rankings. When we compare ADHD apps (FOCO vs. competitors), the ranking reflects our honest assessment. We don’t take affiliate revenue from the apps we review. Our app recommendations stay independent.
Unsourced “studies show” claims. If we cannot link to the actual study, we don’t cite it. “Research suggests” with no link is meaningless.
“Cure your ADHD” framing. ADHD doesn’t get cured. It gets managed. We don’t promise outcomes we cannot deliver.
Content optimized for AI engines at the cost of human readability. We optimize for both. If we ever have to choose, humans win.
How we correct mistakes
If we publish something inaccurate, we fix it visibly. Corrections appear at the bottom of the article with a date and a short note (“Updated [date]: corrected claim about [X]; the original stated [Y]”). We do not silently edit and pretend the mistake didn’t happen.
If you spot a factual error, email support@tryfoco.com. We respond and correct quickly.
How often we update
Pillar guides are reviewed annually for source freshness. Spoke articles are reviewed every 18 months. The glossary is reviewed quarterly. Research reports are versioned – older versions remain accessible with a notice pointing to the current one.
FAQ
Are FOCO writers credentialed clinicians?
No. Our writers are adults living the experience FOCO addresses – most with formal or self-recognized ADHD, none currently with clinical licensure. We cite clinical sources for clinical claims; we don’t claim clinical credentials we don’t have.
Why is the founder undiagnosed?
By choice. The clinical assessment doesn’t change what the founder needed to build – the tool was missing whether her brain technically meets DSM-5 thresholds or not. Full reasoning on the founders page. We’re upfront about it because honesty matters more than borrowed authority.
Do you accept guest writers?
Selectively. ADHD adults with a specific lens (ADHD parenting, ADHD in academia, ADHD founder experience, etc.) can pitch via support@tryfoco.com. We pay for accepted pitches.
How do I report a factual error?
Email support@tryfoco.com with the article URL and the specific claim. Include a source for the correct information if you have one.
Do you use AI at all?
For research, source discovery, outline drafts, and grammar checks – yes. For final published prose – no. Every published sentence is human-written or substantively human-edited.
Why no clinical reviewers yet?
We are bootstrapping. Recruiting paid clinical reviewers is on the roadmap as revenue grows. Until then, the founder personally reviews every article and we are open about not having external clinical review.