How We Verify

The Substrate is one grower and the literature, so “we” is Bean plus the sources. Here is the process every pillar goes through before it ships.

Mechanism before advice

A claim only makes it into a pillar if we can explain why it works. “Water less in winter” is advice; “growth slows in low light, so the pot stays wet longer and roots sit in oxygen-poor substrate” is a mechanism. If we can’t trace the mechanism, the claim gets cut or clearly flagged as unresolved.

Where claims come from

In order of preference:

1. University extension services and peer-reviewed horticulture. The backbone. When a pillar states a number or a causal claim, this is where it should trace to.
2. Primary documentation. Manufacturer specs, botanical references, meteorological data for the Nordic-latitude claims.
3. First-hand observation. What actually happened in this apartment. Always labeled as such: “in my setup” means exactly that, one grower’s observation, not a study.

We do not cite content farms, and we do not launder another blogger’s guess into a fact by repeating it.

What we never do

• Claim credentials we don’t have. Bean is a hobby grower, not a horticulturist, and the site says so.
• Present a test we didn’t run as if we ran it. If we haven’t grown it, killed it, or measured it ourselves, the text won’t imply we have.
• Leave a known error standing. When a reader or a better source shows a pillar is wrong, we correct the article and note the change in its modified date.

When we’re unsure

Uncertainty is stated in the text. Plenty of houseplant lore is untested either way; where the honest answer is “the evidence is thin”, the pillar says that instead of picking the confident-sounding option.

Found something wrong? Tell us on any channel, it genuinely helps.