MyForexGlobal Capital's editorial and review policy is designed to make financial-market content clear about evidence, uncertainty, authorship and risk. Readers should be able to distinguish a stable definition from an empirical finding, a historical result from a forecast, and education from a personalized financial recommendation.
Purpose of the policy
Financial content can influence real decisions, so accuracy is not only a writing issue. Definitions, formulas, market mechanics, regulatory statements and performance claims need different types of evidence and different levels of caution.
MFXG's goal is to explain what is known, what is conditional and what remains uncertain without using certainty as a marketing device.
Authorship and review
Public pages identify an author or editorial team and, where applicable, a reviewer. The author is responsible for preparing the material within the stated page scope. The reviewer checks clarity, factual consistency, evidence, risk framing and whether the page stays inside its intended topic.
Paul Mukara is listed as reviewer on parts of the MFXG knowledge base. His founder role and broader market perspective are described on the Paul Mukara page.
Source standards
The appropriate source depends on the claim. MFXG prefers original or primary material where practical: regulators for current regulatory facts, exchanges or official providers for market specifications, academic or original research for empirical findings, and first-party company material for MFXG's own services and policies.
Secondary sources can help explain context, but they should not silently replace the authoritative source when a claim can be checked directly.
Current facts and empirical claims require extra care
Some facts change. Broker permissions, trading rules, product specifications, regulation, fees, market statistics and software features can become outdated. Those claims should be checked at the time of writing or review and qualified when they depend on jurisdiction, product or date.
Empirical findings also need context. A result from one sample, period or investor group should not be rewritten as a universal law. The page should preserve the limits of the evidence and avoid implying that an observed historical relationship guarantees a future trading outcome.
Use language that matches the evidence
Stable definitions can usually be stated directly. Conditional market behaviour should use conditional language. Forecasts and model outputs should be described as estimates, scenarios or research results rather than facts about the future.
This standard is especially important for backtests and machine-learning models. Historical fit, statistical significance or high predictive accuracy in one sample does not remove model risk or execution risk.
Corrections and updates
If a factual error is identified, the page should be corrected rather than defended because it has already been published. Material changes should trigger a new review of affected claims and nearby context.
Pages that depend on current facts may need more frequent checking than pages explaining stable mathematics or definitions. A review date is useful only when the underlying content has actually been reviewed.
Commercial relationships should be visible
If MFXG has a paid partnership, affiliate relationship, sponsored placement or other commercial connection that could reasonably affect how a reader interprets a recommendation, that relationship should be disclosed in the relevant context.
Commercial relationships should not be presented as independent evidence that a financial product, broker or service is suitable for every reader.
Financial-content boundaries
MFXG publishes education, research explanations and company information. Public content does not guarantee returns, eliminate the possibility of loss or replace individualized advice from an appropriately authorized professional where that is required.
The company's stated service scope excludes custody or discretionary management of client funds, brokerage and client trade execution. The separate Trading & Investing Risk Disclosure explains the main reader-facing risk boundaries in more detail.
Research and editorial review are related but different
The MFXG Research Methodology explains how market questions, data, validation and model risk are handled in analytical work. Editorial review asks a different question: does the public page accurately represent that evidence for the reader it is intended to help?
Both are necessary when a technical result is translated into financial content.
Contacting MFXG about a correction
If you believe a page contains a factual error, outdated claim or unclear disclosure, use the contact page and identify the page and statement in question. A correction request should be evaluated against the underlying evidence, not simply accepted or rejected because it agrees with the existing wording.