Fix My Money Life publishes educational content about U.S. consumer credit and practical money decisions. This Editorial Policy explains how topics are selected, how claims are researched, how articles are reviewed and updated, and what readers should expect from our work.
Our editorial mission
Our goal is to make complicated credit and money questions easier to understand without oversimplifying the facts. We aim to give readers a direct answer, explain what evidence matters, show what to verify, and provide practical tools that can help them decide what to do next.
We do not publish content to promise quick fixes, guaranteed credit-score increases, guaranteed deletions, or guaranteed dispute outcomes.
Who is responsible for the content
Claire Bennett is the editorial name used by the founder and editor of Fix My Money Life. Claire is responsible for editorial direction, research standards, article structure, source selection, revisions, and updates.
We do not use a fictional fact-checking team or invent professional credentials. When an article says it was reviewed against official source material, that means the content was checked against the cited or otherwise relevant authoritative sources for that topic.
How we choose topics
We prioritize questions that reflect real consumer problems and can be answered in a useful, specific way. Current core topics include credit scores, credit reports, late payments, collections, charge-offs, account reporting, disputes, payment history, closed accounts, and related debt issues.
We try to keep one primary search intent per article. When two questions require meaningfully different evidence or next steps, we prefer separate guides rather than forcing unrelated answers into one page.
Our source standards
For factual claims involving U.S. consumer credit, reporting rules, scoring guidance, or consumer protections, we prefer primary and first-party sources whenever possible.
Depending on the subject, sources may include:
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau;
- Federal Trade Commission;
- FICO and myFICO;
- AnnualCreditReport.com;
- Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion;
- federal statutes, regulations, and official government publications;
- official lender, servicer, or issuer documentation when the question concerns a specific process or product.
Secondary sources may be used for context, but they should not replace a stronger primary source when one is reasonably available.
How we handle credit-score claims
Credit scores are calculated using proprietary models, and a consumer can have multiple scores based on different models, versions, bureaus, products, and dates. Because of that, we avoid presenting one universal number of points as a guaranteed result.
If an article discusses a published score simulation or example, we identify it as an example or simulation and avoid presenting it as a prediction for every reader.
How we handle disputes and negative information
Our dispute content is written to help readers identify and challenge information they have a good-faith reason to believe is inaccurate or incomplete. We do not encourage readers to dispute accurate negative information merely because it is harmful to a credit score.
Where useful, we explain the difference between correcting an error and asking a creditor for a voluntary goodwill adjustment. We also avoid promising that either process will result in deletion.
What makes an article useful
We aim to include original practical value rather than only repeating definitions. Depending on the topic, that can include:
- decision trees;
- step-by-step checklists;
- before-and-after comparisons;
- worksheets;
- call scripts;
- document checklists;
- timelines;
- examples that show how to analyze a situation;
- tables that separate similar but different outcomes.
These tools are educational. They should be adapted to the reader’s actual account records, dates, balances, and circumstances.
Verification of financial claims
Financial claims should be checked against appropriate sources before publication or during review.
Review and update process
An article may be reviewed or updated when:
- official guidance changes;
- a stronger or more current primary source becomes available;
- a factual statement needs clarification;
- a process, deadline, or consumer option changes;
- a broken or outdated source link is found;
- a reader identifies a possible error;
- the article can be made materially more useful with better examples, tools, or structure.
Where appropriate, articles display a “Last reviewed” or similar date so readers can see when the content was most recently checked.
Corrections policy
If we identify a material factual error, our goal is to correct it promptly and improve the wording so the mistake is less likely to be repeated. Small edits for grammar, clarity, formatting, or broken links may be made without a separate correction notice.
Readers can report a possible factual error through our Contact page. The most useful correction requests identify the article, the specific statement in question, and the source or evidence that appears to conflict with it.
Independence and commercial influence
Our Affiliate Disclosure explains how paid links and advertising are identified for readers. A page with a compensated recommendation should carry a plain-language notice near that recommendation.
Editorial conclusions should not be changed to satisfy an advertiser, affiliate partner, lender, credit bureau, or other commercial interest. If a page contains affiliate or sponsored content, that relationship should be disclosed where required and should not change the factual standards applied to the article.
Financial and legal limitations
Fix My Money Life provides general educational information. It does not provide individualized legal, tax, credit-repair, lending, or financial advice, and it does not create a professional-client relationship.
Readers should consider their own documents, account terms, deadlines, state law, and individual circumstances. When a situation involves significant legal risk, active litigation, identity theft, or substantial financial harm, a qualified professional may be appropriate.
Editorial review checklist
Before or during a substantive review, we aim to check the parts of an article that can materially affect a reader’s understanding or next step:
- Core answer: Does the article answer the stated question clearly and without overstating certainty?
- Source quality: Are important factual claims supported by appropriate primary or first-party sources where available?
- Dates and rules: Are time-sensitive rules, deadlines, reporting periods, and source dates still current?
- Examples: Are hypothetical examples labeled clearly and kept separate from guaranteed outcomes?
- Reader action: Does the article explain what the reader should verify in their own records before acting?
- Links: Do cited sources and internal next-step guides still lead to the intended material?
How readers can request a correction
Use the Contact page and include the article URL, the exact statement you believe needs review, and the source or document that appears to conflict with it. Specific evidence helps us review a concern more efficiently.
Our standard for trust
Trust is earned by being specific about what is known, what is uncertain, what source supports a claim, and what the reader should verify independently. We would rather give a careful answer with limits than a confident promise that cannot be supported.
For more information about the publication, see About Fix My Money Life.