Responsibility for attribution
Author review asks whether a reader can identify the primary source behind each material claim. The attribution note preserves source owner, URL, date, claim scope and unresolved limitations, making the named author accountable for wording and source boundaries. Check the sentence against the relevant Botswana regulator, statistics office or bank; authorship supplies no lending authority. Revisit it when a link changes or a document is replaced, because newer material may alter the support. If the citation no longer supports the sentence, the sentence cannot remain as written. The author must correct or remove the claim rather than preserve stale wording, leaving a transparent reason instead of defending obsolete copy.
Responsibility for clear boundaries
Author review asks whether institutional identity is not confused with product price or applicant eligibility. The attribution note preserves what is verified, what is provider-supplied and what needs a personal document, making the named author accountable for wording and source boundaries. Check the sentence against separate register and product evidence; authorship supplies no lending authority. Revisit it after a reader interpreting a general page as an offer, when stale context or replacement material may alter support. If unknown terms are described as typical or expected, the sentence cannot remain as written. The author must state not published and request a written quote, leaving a transparent reason instead of defending obsolete copy.
Responsibility for independence
Author review asks whether no payment or brand preference determines a favourable conclusion. The attribution note preserves selection rule, evidence standard and absence of commission, making the named author accountable for wording and source boundaries. Check the sentence against the same checks applied to both active banks; authorship supplies no lending authority. Revisit it after the first row being mistaken for a recommendation, when stale context or replacement material may alter support. If best or cheapest language appears without comparable terms, the sentence cannot remain as written. The author must remove the unsupported preference and show the decision method, leaving a transparent reason instead of defending obsolete copy.
Responsibility for correction
Author review asks whether credible new evidence receives a traceable review. The attribution note preserves affected sentence, stronger source, review date and resulting change, making the named author accountable for wording and source boundaries. Check the sentence against current primary documentation; authorship supplies no lending authority. Revisit it after conflicting locality or legal-identity records, when stale context or replacement material may alter support. If the uncertainty is hidden from readers, the sentence cannot remain as written. The author must block the disputed claim until it can be resolved, leaving a transparent reason instead of defending obsolete copy.