Transparent content standards
Articles first explain real site tasks, operation, metrics, and limitations. Search keywords and ad inventory do not define the editorial purpose.
Content is attributed to the focus-game.org editorial team. The site does not invent doctors, psychologists, researchers, or external expert reviewers.
If automation or AI assists drafting, organization, or checks, published content still requires verification against facts, sources, language quality, and the site's real implementation. Automated generation is not itself evidence of quality.
Articles explain what a page asks, what it records, how to run comparable sessions, what can affect a result, and what the result cannot show. Every indexable page should remain worth keeping without advertising.
Strong outcome claims require reliable sources that match the conclusion. Page scores are not interpreted as diagnosis, IQ, brain age, clinical cutoff, or guaranteed transfer. When evidence is absent, the claim is removed instead of being propped up by a vague citation.
For Stroop, n-back, response timing, attention, memory, or training-transfer context, the site prefers original papers, systematic reviews, standards, government, university, or academic-institution pages. Sources support background facts; the article remains an original explanation tied to the site's implementation rather than a copy of the source.
When no genuine named author exists, the site uses editorial-team attribution and invents no biography. Publication reflects the date content first entered the repository or was actually added. Modified dates change only for substantive rewriting, important source additions, or interpretation changes.
Errors in rules, metrics, links, sources, or localization are corrected in code and every language version and rechecked through tests and the content audit. There is currently no verifiable public contact destination, so the site provides no fake email or form; this section should name a route when the owner publishes one.