Editorial policy and standards

How a review comes together

Every channel review starts with time spent reading the actual feed. We follow a room for weeks, log how it calls entries, where it places stops, and how it behaves on a losing day. Only then do we write. We describe what the desk really does, in plain words, and we skip the marketing gloss that so many rooms lean on.

What the evidence rests on

Our notes come from primary sources: the messages themselves, the timestamps on them, and the public track a room chooses to show. We do not repost doctored screenshots, and we do not quote win rates we cannot see for ourselves. When something is a judgement call, we say so and explain the reasoning, so you can weigh it yourself.

How guides are written

Teaching pieces follow the same rule. We favour clear, tested advice over clever theory, and we lean on widely accepted risk practice rather than personal hunches. If a guide touches a number, we prefer a worked example to a bold claim. The goal is a reader who can act on their own, not one who depends on us.

When we update things

Markets move and rooms change. We revisit a review when a desk shifts its style, changes hands, or stops posting, and we correct mistakes as soon as we spot them or you flag them. A page that no longer matches reality is worse than no page at all, so stale content gets fixed or pulled.

Our conflict of interest, stated plainly

Here is the part many sites bury. DIGI LEAK earns money from subscriptions, and many of the channels we write about are part of the membership we sell. That means we have a commercial reason to present these rooms in a good light. We try hard to stay honest anyway, but you should read our reviews knowing this, and you should always test a feed yourself before you trust it with real money.

Telling us we got it wrong

If a review reads unfairly or a fact is off, email mklantry@gmail.com. We would rather fix a page than defend it. For the wider context, see our note on trading risk.