Editorial Standards

What makes a FRQNCY pick

A pick is a public endorsement: this teacher / book / org / project / good has earned a place on FRQNCY. The criterion is the same regardless of category.

A pick must be:

1. Personally vetted. Someone in the picking body (see §3) has read the book, taken the course, used the product, met the person, or studied the practice deeply enough to vouch. No second-hand picks. "I heard it's good" doesn't qualify.
2. In service of the practitioner. The pick exists because it makes someone more able, not because it adorns FRQNCY. The slogan "FRQNCY makes the unable able" is the test.
3. Spiritual-technology, not spiritual-materialism. A pick should equip practice, not signal status. If the appeal is collecting credentials or accessing a scene, decline.
4. Independent of money flow. The pick decision precedes any commercial relationship. We never start with "we could partner here" and back into a pick.
5. Honest about what it is. Picks are tagged with the kind of recommendation: a learning resource, a practice, a daily good, a network entry, etc. We don't pretend a product pick is a teaching pick or vice versa.

A pick is not:

• A directory entry. Most things on FRQNCY are listed because they're part of the field; only a fraction are picks.
• A sponsorship slot. Sponsorship doesn't exist as an editorial category.
• A ranking. There's no #1 pick, no top-10 list, no leaderboard. Picks are flat — everything that meets the bar gets the same badge.

Conflict-of-interest disclosure

A FRQNCY pick is allowed to coexist with a money flow only when the relationship is disclosed. Three relationships are recognised:

Type	What it means	Disclosure
null	No money flows between FRQNCY and this entity. The default.	None required.
contributor	The entity contributes to the FRQNCY Fund or to a Sanctuary operating budget. The contribution does not influence the pick.	A small "supports FRQNCY" note on the entry, plus a line on the Aligned page explaining what contributor means.
partner	A direct partnership exists — co-marketing, revenue share, joint programming. Picks involving partners are still made independently of the partnership terms.	A clearly-labelled "FRQNCY partner" badge on the entry, plus a per-page disclosure footer.
affiliate	An affiliate or referral commission exists on the link. FRQNCY currently does not use this — kept here for completeness.	A clearly-labelled "affiliate link" badge plus an affiliate disclosure on every page that contains an affiliate link. Default: avoid this category unless there is no cleaner option.

The schema field is revenue_relationship: null | "contributor" | "partner" | "affiliate" on each picked entity. Disclosure renders automatically from the field — no per-entry copywriting needed.

Hard rules

1. The Fund cannot pick a portfolio company without revenue_relationship: "contributor" | "partner" set, and a separate Fund disclosure on the entity's profile.
2. An Aligned Goods entry that becomes a partner cannot also be a Fund portfolio company without explicit founder-level approval and a double-disclosure.
3. Sponsored content is not a category. If a piece of content was paid for, it is not editorial — and FRQNCY does not publish it. There's no in-between.
4. Money flowing the other direction (FRQNCY paying for something to be featured) is also off the table. No bought placements on partners' platforms framed as picks. If we want to be on someone's site, we earn it.

Who can mark a pick

Today the picking body is the founder + co-founder. Picks are made by direct edit to the relevant entity file. No process beyond a code commit.

This works at small scale. At the next thresholds it has to become explicit:

• At ~25 contributors — a "pick committee" of 3–5 named people. Each pillar has at least one committee member. A pick requires one member to vouch and a second to confirm. Disagreements are kept on the entity file as a comment, not erased.
• At ~100 contributors — a published "pick charter" (this doc, expanded with concrete examples). Onboarding for new committee members. Quarterly review of recent picks against the standards.
• At any scale — the founder retains a final-say veto on individual picks. This is not used to push picks through; it is used to block picks that violate the standards when the committee is split.

The picking body is not a popularity-based group. New committee members are invited by existing ones based on demonstrated taste in their pillar — measured by the quality of their vouches, not their follower count.

Pick provenance

Every pick should leave a trail. Not as bureaucracy — as honesty.

For each picked entity, the entity's data file should include (or link to) a one-paragraph rationale: who picked it, when, what the test of "personally vetted" was, and which pillar it serves. Not a long essay. A few sentences.

Picked by Orlando, 2026-04, after using the kettle daily for nine months. Replaces a plastic-bodied appliance that was leaching, and a glass alternative that broke twice. Network-state pillar (durable, repair-favoured, transparent supply chain).

This rationale is not marketing copy — it's editorial accountability. It also gives future agents grounds to decide whether the pick still holds up if circumstances change.

When to retire a pick

Picks are not permanent. They are retired when:

• The reason for picking no longer holds (the teacher has reframed their work in a way that conflicts with the values; the product was reformulated; the org has been bought).
• New evidence undermines the original vouch (a teacher's work is shown to be substantially derivative without credit; a product is shown to harm; a partner repeatedly violates the agreement).
• The picker would not pick it again today.

Retirement is not the same as removal. The entity stays on the site as a directory entry where appropriate; only the picked_in field is cleared. If the retirement is significant enough to inform readers (e.g., a previously-picked teacher), a one-line note on the entity profile explains what changed and when. We keep the history; we just don't keep the endorsement.

Reviewing this doc

This document is reviewed and updated:

• After any pick is publicly contested.
• Before scaling any new revenue surface.
• Quarterly during the first year, then yearly.

Edits that loosen the standards require founder approval. Edits that tighten them can be made by any contributor with a clear rationale.

The integrity test

When in doubt: would FRQNCY pick this if there were no possibility of money ever flowing from the relationship?

If yes — fine. If no — decline, regardless of the financial upside.

This is the only standard that protects the network's most valuable asset (trust) from the network's most predictable failure mode (drift toward what pays).