Melissa Roiatti

Melissa Roiatti is the editor of Quantus Tools & Intelligence and is the named author of the calculator documentation and the written analysis published here.

That covers the 10 calculator pages and the 10 articles: the introduction and result guidance on each tool, the formula and methodology sections, the worked examples, the stated assumptions and the explicit account of what each model does not do.

It does not extend to the calculation modules themselves. The arithmetic lives in tested modules that the pages document, and no editorial change alters a formula, a default or a rounding policy.

The brief on every page is the same: show the arithmetic, state the assumptions, and say where the model stops being reliable. A page that returns a number without those three things is not finished.

Where a page describes an external rule — a tax treatment, a published cost series, a benefit that has to come from your own statement — the page cites the primary source for it rather than restating a figure that will go stale inside a tool.

Calculator documentation is checked against the module it documents, not against memory. Every worked example on the site is reproduced by running the calculator, so a page's prose and its tool cannot drift apart.

Review before publication is a separate pair of eyes: Ugo Candido, MBA, reviews the pages listed with a review date and checks that the rules, definitions and limitations a page asserts match the sources it cites.

Three automated gates run alongside that. Each calculator must pass its mathematical test suite — a known case, a zero-rate case, a single-period case, an invalid-input case, a boundary case and a rounding check. The content gate checks that every page carries a unique title, a primary keyword, a quantitative table, a methodology section, a worked example, stated assumptions, limitations and cited sources. The internal-link gate checks that every contextual link resolves and meets the site's linking rules.

The review date shown on a page is the date that verification was actually carried out. It is written by hand and is deliberately not the build date, so rebuilding the site never claims a page was re-checked. It is also kept separate from the updated date, because confirming that a page is still correct is a different claim from changing it.

Corrections are treated as defects rather than as editorial disagreements. A wrong number is fixed in the calculation module, covered by a test that fails without the fix, and reflected in every worked example that quoted it.

If a figure on this site does not reproduce from the inputs you used, that is a bug worth reporting. The editorial policy sets out the correction route and the contact address for it.