Editorial standards
Insights is where Super-G Intelligence publishes what we know about building office technology: cabling, networking, Wi-Fi, conference room AV and security. Readers use these articles to make real decisions about circuits, hardware and buildouts, so we hold them to a simple standard. Every claim should be accurate, traceable to a source, and current. This page explains how we meet that standard and what happens when we miss it.
Who writes Insights
Insights is written by the people who do the work. Steve Geborde founded Super-G in Queens, NY in 2018, and the team designs and installs office technology in New York. The articles come from that work: surveying spaces, pulling cable, hanging access points, commissioning conference rooms, and fixing networks that were built in the wrong order.
Each article names its author and its reviewer. We don’t publish under a generic byline.
How articles are reviewed
Before an article is published, a named human reviewer checks it for technical accuracy. That means confirming each figure against its source, checking that recommendations match current standards and manufacturer guidance, and removing anything we can’t support.
Every article shows two dates:
Published: when the article first went live.
Last reviewed: the most recent date someone checked the whole article and confirmed it is still accurate.
Standards change, firmware changes and products are discontinued. If an article hasn’t been reviewed in a while, the Last reviewed date tells you so, and you can weigh it accordingly.
How we source claims
We cite primary sources wherever one exists, and we prefer them in this order:
Standards bodies: IEEE, the Wi-Fi Alliance, TIA/ANSI and BICSI, for how technologies are defined and how installations should be built.
Regulators: the FCC, for spectrum, power and other rules.
Manufacturer documentation: datasheets, deployment guides and release notes, for how specific hardware actually behaves.
Each article lists its sources as numbered references, so you can check any claim yourself. We don’t cite vendor marketing as evidence for performance claims, and we don’t repeat statistics we can’t trace to where they came from.
Some of what we know doesn’t come from a document. It comes from installs. Those first-hand observations are labelled From the field, so you can always tell what we measured or saw ourselves apart from what a standard or manufacturer states.
Corrections and updates
When we get something wrong, we fix it in the article itself rather than publishing a separate notice elsewhere. Every correction updates the Last reviewed date.
If a correction is material, meaning it changes a figure, a recommendation or a conclusion, we add a note at the end of the article saying what changed and when. Small fixes such as typos, broken links and wording that doesn’t change the meaning are made without a note.
When an article goes out of date, we update it and review it again. We don’t leave advice up that we would no longer give.
Use of AI tools
Drafts may be prepared with AI assistance. That help covers structure, wording and summarising source material. It isn’t a substitute for expertise or verification.
No article is published on the strength of an AI draft. Every article is reviewed and fact-checked by a named human reviewer before it goes live, and that reviewer is responsible for its accuracy. Figures, standards references and recommendations are checked against the cited sources, not taken from a model’s output.
Contact
If you spot an error, an outdated figure or a claim that needs a better source, email service@supergintelligence.com or call (718) 516-3554. Include the article title and the passage in question. We read every report and will correct the article where the evidence supports it.
