This Editorial Policy explains how Kimi-AI.free selects topics, verifies claims, uses sources, applies AI assistance, handles advertising and corrects errors.
Effective date: August 23, 2026
Editorial Mission
Our mission is to help English-speaking users understand and use Kimi AI through accurate, practical and independent content. Pages are created for people with a real question or task, not to manufacture many near-duplicate pages for search engines.
Independence
Kimi-AI.free is not affiliated with Moonshot AI or Kimi. We do not accept instructions from Moonshot AI about our conclusions, and we do not present third-party promotional claims as independent findings.
Source Hierarchy
| Priority | Source type | Typical use |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Current Kimi and Moonshot AI documentation | Features, pricing, limits, terms, product access and support |
| 2 | Official model cards, technical reports and repositories | Architecture, weights, licenses, deployment and benchmark methodology |
| 3 | Official app stores, exchange filings, corporate reports and regulatory records | Developer identity, versions, ownership and legally significant facts |
| 4 | Primary research and direct testing | Original evaluation, reproduction and methodology-based observations |
| 5 | High-quality independent reporting | Context, criticism, financing, market events and perspectives not established by a product page |
| 6 | Community reports | Discovering possible bugs or questions that require independent verification |
Official-Source-First Does Not Mean Official-Source-Only
Official documentation is usually the best source for current product rules, but it can be incomplete, promotional, internally inconsistent or updated at different times. Independent tests and reporting can provide evidence about real behavior, limitations and user impact. We label the origin of each claim and do not treat a vendor benchmark as independent proof.
Time-Sensitive Information
- Pages about models, prices, subscriptions, limits, support or applications include a last-verified date where practical.
- We avoid words such as “latest,” “current,” “unlimited” or “best” without a dated and supportable basis.
- Historical prices or ownership percentages are labeled historical.
- When official pages conflict, the conflict is stated and the most authoritative current source is identified.
Article Workflow
- Intent definition: identify the user’s question and the page that should own it.
- Competitor and source review: determine what current pages answer and where they are incomplete.
- Evidence collection: gather current first-party and primary sources.
- Claim map: separate verified facts, analysis, estimates and unknowns.
- Drafting: create a useful structure that fits the task rather than one repeated template.
- Accuracy review: check names, dates, values, links, code and quoted product behavior.
- Editorial review: remove duplication, hype, unsupported certainty and misleading calls to action.
- Publication and monitoring: publish with update information and revisit when a product changes.
AI-Assisted Content
We may use generative AI or automation to assist with research discovery, comparison, outlines, drafting, code checks, tables, image concepts or consistency review. AI assistance is not treated as evidence. Claims must be tied to sources, logic or disclosed testing.
We do not publish large volumes of unreviewed pages merely because automation can generate them. Google’s published guidance states that generative AI can help with research and structure, while scaled content that adds no user value can violate spam policies.
Original Tests and Benchmarks
When a page reports an original test, it should disclose enough information to understand what the result does and does not establish:
- Test date and product route.
- Account, plan or model configuration where relevant.
- Dataset or task definition.
- Number of attempts.
- Scoring method.
- Tools and environment.
- Known exclusions and limitations.
- Evidence files or screenshots when publication rights permit.
We do not invent a test, imply that a demonstration is a controlled benchmark or generalize one result into a universal model ranking.
Reviews and Comparisons
Comparison pages should define the use case, date, plans, products and criteria. A model can be better for one workload and worse for another. We avoid universal “winner” claims when the evidence supports only a narrower conclusion.
Corrections
We correct factual errors, broken official links and materially misleading wording. Minor grammar or formatting changes may be made without a notice. A material correction may be described on the page with the date and nature of the change.
Report an error to [email protected] with the page URL, disputed text and supporting evidence.
Advertising, Affiliates and Sponsorship
- Advertisements are visually separated from editorial content.
- Ads do not determine review conclusions.
- Paid placements and sponsorships are labeled.
- Affiliate relationships, if introduced, are disclosed near the relevant recommendation.
- We do not disguise an advertisement as an official Kimi login, download or support button.
Images and Screenshots
Images should provide explanatory value. Screenshots should be current, relevant and redacted where necessary. Logos and trademarks are used only where appropriate to identify a product, without implying affiliation. Generated illustrations are not presented as screenshots of a real interface.
Conflicts of Interest
Writers and editors should disclose a financial, employment or contractual relationship that could materially affect a page. A free product account, review access or ordinary advertising relationship does not entitle a company to edit our conclusions.