Editorial policy
How Hlonix verifies compatibility claims
Every compatibility result should be traceable to a service rule, a router capability and the evidence supporting both. Hlonix separates what is documented from what still needs confirmation.
1. Source hierarchy
First preference is official ISP support material and official router-manufacturer manuals or support pages. Provider-hosted knowledge bases and community material may be used when direct documentation is incomplete. Secondary evidence is labelled and normally lowers confidence.
2. Rule extraction
Sources are reduced to specific technical facts: physical handoff, PPPoE or DHCP authentication, VLAN requirements, modem/ONT/gateway dependency, bridge or passthrough mode, DHCP options and phone/TV caveats. A source is not treated as proof for claims outside the rule it actually supports.
3. Confidence
High confidence means the core setup is supported by strong direct documentation. Medium confidence means the core path is plausible but important evidence is indirect, provider-hosted secondary material or still account-specific. Hlonix deliberately uses verification-needed outcomes when uncertainty matters.
4. Freshness
The checker displays the compatibility dataset review date. Editorial pages also show a page review date. A newer page-review date does not pretend that every external ISP document changed that day; the dates are kept separate.
5. Independence
Hlonix does not rank ISPs or routers based on advertising relationships. Compatibility logic is based on technical evidence. Advertising, where present, is visually and functionally separate from the checker controls and editorial verdict.
6. Corrections
A reported issue is checked against the affected rule and source before changing the dataset. Corrections that alter a compatibility outcome should update the evidence, review date and relevant production checks together.