Last updated: 13 September 2026
IT Pro Insights is an independent, one-person technical publication. This page explains exactly how an article here gets made, checked, published, and kept current — and who is answerable for it.
AI assistance and human accountability
Drafts are produced with AI assistance. This is disclosed at the top of every single article, in the same words: "Drafted with AI assistance. We review and correct articles on an ongoing basis."
Articles are drafted with AI assistance, checked by automated quality and fact gates, and published on a schedule under the byline of Thorsteinn Halldorsson, who runs this site and is the named human responsible for everything on it. He holds a veto: he can stop or unpublish any article, and he corrects errors through the corrections page. An article that fails the gates does not reach the site — the publishing script only ever reads from the approved queue, so skipping the gates is not possible by accident.
Research and sourcing
Topics come from real operational problems: changes shipping in the platform, gaps in the vendor documentation, and the topic requests readers send in.
Version-specific and behavioural claims have to be traceable to an authoritative source — vendor documentation (Microsoft Learn, Azure docs), project documentation (Kubernetes, Terraform, Flux, Argo CD), standards bodies (IETF/RFC, W3C, NIST, CISA, OWASP), or the relevant language and database docs. This is not a good intention: the pre-publish check counts the authoritative citations in tutorials, how-tos, guides, and deep dives, warns at one, and fails the article at zero. Blog posts and vendor marketing pages do not count as sources.
"Tested against"
Many articles end with a "Tested against" footer naming the exact product, API, CLI, and module versions the steps and commands were written and checked against — because a command that is correct on one API version can be wrong on the next.
Treat it as an expiry label rather than a badge: if your versions differ from the ones listed, verify before you run. Where a platform is known to move fast, that footer says so explicitly and tells you to check the current vendor documentation first.
The two-stage check
Every draft passes through an automated gate before a human ever sees it as a candidate for publication.
- Automated quality gate. A scripted check runs over the draft and reports errors and warnings. It verifies structure and length, meta description length, the presence of real code examples and a diagram, no duplicate H1, working internal links, authoritative citations, headline and keyphrase rules, readability, and exactly three related-article links. It also flags generic filler and AI boilerplate — phrases like "as an AI", "I hope this helps", leftover TODO markers, and placeholder text. Errors are not advisory: the approval script refuses to move a failing draft into the approved queue. A second, narrower gate runs again at publish time and refuses to publish or update any article that still carries an unfulfilled screenshot marker, a broken or unresolved internal link, or (for a new article) more than two of the interchangeable framing sections — Executive Snapshot, TL;DR, Key Takeaways, Next Steps, Troubleshooting — so new articles since September 2026 do not share a skeleton. In-article illustrations are AI-generated schematics and are always captioned "Illustration:" so they cannot be mistaken for a capture. Where an article points at a specific console page we have not yet captured, a stylized rendering captioned "Mock-up (not a screenshot):" shows what to look for; anything presented as a screenshot is a real one.
- Owner oversight. The gate can only check form. A draft that passes is queued with a planned publish date and published on that date under Thorsteinn's byline, with the fact-and-freshness gate re-run at publish time. He holds a veto — he can stop any article by setting its WordPress status to private or by removing its planned publish date — and errors are corrected through the corrections page. Passing the gate is a precondition for publishing, never a guarantee of accuracy.
Articles that cannot be made accurate are not published, and there is no volume target that overrides that.
Publishing cadence
Approved articles are published in small batches on a schedule, not dumped in bulk. Each approved article carries a planned publish date; a scheduled weekday job promotes the ones that have come due, after re-running the publish gate on each of them.
The promotion script caps an ordinary run at two articles, and refuses a larger batch unless the operator explicitly overrides it. Flipping many posts live at once gives them all the same publication timestamp, which is both misleading to readers and a pattern that quality reviews flag. Publishing steadily is a deliberate constraint enforced in code, not a habit.
Updates, revisions, and superseded articles
Technology moves, and published guidance goes stale. When an article is meaningfully revised after publication, a "Reviewed" date appears beside the byline showing when it was last updated. Every article always shows its original publication date.
Articles that no longer earn a place in search results are not deleted. A thin or superseded article is marked noindex and dropped from the sitemap while staying reachable at its original URL — links that people saved keep working, and anything already cited elsewhere does not turn into a dead end. Where a newer article genuinely supersedes an older one, the old URL redirects to its replacement. Quietly deleting published work to tidy up an archive is not something this site does.
Independence from advertisers
The site is self-funded and earns revenue from display advertising. Advertisers have no input into what gets covered, how a product is assessed, or when an article is published, and no advertiser sees an article in advance. No affiliate links are currently used; if any are introduced, each will be disclosed where it appears and will never change a recommendation. Recommendations are made on technical merit alone. Guest posts, sponsored articles, and link-insertion requests are not accepted.
Corrections
A confirmed factual error gets fixed in the article as soon as it is verified, and corrections are prioritised over all other mail. How to report one, and what happens next, is on the corrections page.
Questions
Anything about how this site is made: thorsteinn.halldorsson@gmail.com. See also about, the terms of use, and the privacy policy.