Editorial Standards

ARCANUM publishes two different kinds of content: a historical and symbolic archive, and a proprietary interpretive framework built on top of it. Every editorial decision on this site follows one rule: readers should always be able to tell which of the two they are reading.

Content is written to be precise before it is written to be evocative. Where a claim is historical, it is framed as historical. Where a claim is interpretive, it is framed as ARCANUM's own reading, not as an established fact. This document is maintained by ARCANUM's founder, the same person accountable for the rest of the site described on About.

Historical and archival pages — the Ancient Texts, Symbols, Cosmology, and Correspondences sections of the Library — draw on primary and well-documented secondary material such as the Corpus Hermeticum, the Emerald Tablet, the Picatrix, and the writings of Renaissance figures like Marsilio Ficino and Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa. A full reference list is maintained on Research Sources.

ARCANUM does not fabricate citations, invent studies, or attribute claims to sources that do not support them. Where a historical detail is disputed or uncertain among scholars, the archive favors the general reference rather than an invented specific one.

Framework content is ARCANUM's own proprietary material: the pattern taxonomy, scoring and differential logic, and structural interpretations documented in full on Methodology. This content is not presented as historical fact, scientific consensus, or clinical guidance. It is presented as ARCANUM's interpretive framework, written in ARCANUM's own voice.

These two categories are kept structurally distinct across the site:

• Archive — historical, cultural, and textual material studied as intellectual history. It describes what a tradition says or said. It is not evidence for a pattern diagnosis and does not feed the scoring mechanism.
• Interpretation — ARCANUM's own reading, built from recognition statements through the mechanism described in Methodology. It describes what ARCANUM concludes, not what a historical source claims.

Articles that draw on both — for example, using a Hermetic phrase to illustrate a modern pattern — are written to keep that seam visible rather than blur archive and interpretation into a single undifferentiated claim.

If a factual, historical, or attribution error is identified in any page — archive or framework — it is corrected directly in the published page as soon as it is verified. ARCANUM does not leave known errors live for engagement or SEO reasons. Readers who spot an error can report it through Contact.

Framework content — the taxonomy, scoring logic, and interpretation rules described in Methodology — is revised deliberately and infrequently, not on a fixed schedule. When the underlying mechanism changes in a way that affects how a reading is produced, that change is recorded in the Update History section of the Methodology page with a date and a summary.

Archive pages may be revised for clarity, accuracy, or added historical context at any time without changing the underlying framework.

ARCANUM does not present invented science, invented validation studies, invented academic partnerships, invented statistics, invented testimonials, or invented certifications anywhere on this site. Where the framework has limits, they are documented on Methodology and disclosed on the Disclaimer. Where content is commercial, it is disclosed under the site's Terms. The goal of this page is that a reader never has to guess whether something on this site is fact, tradition, or ARCANUM's own interpretation.