This platform
Editorial and verification policy
How NHB Subsidy researches, verifies, publishes, reviews and corrects information about NHB and NHM subsidy schemes.
- last updated
Independent educational and assistance platform. Not a government website and not affiliated with or endorsed by NHB, NHM or any government authority. Scheme decisions and approvals rest with the relevant authorities.
Our promise
Every factual statement on this platform about a rule, rate, eligibility condition, deadline, component or document requirement is tied to an identified official source and a named reviewer. Where we cannot do that, we say so plainly and avoid a definitive answer. We would rather publish less than publish something we cannot back.
Who is accountable
One editorial lead is accountable for factual quality. One product owner is accountable for the reader's experience. Commercial and partner staff may suggest topics and report reader problems, but they cannot approve a factual claim, alter a verification label, or suppress a correction. Sponsorship or partner payments never influence what we conclude.
How a page is produced
- Register the source. A researcher records the official document: issuer, title, official URL, document number, publication and effective dates, language, and the exact version retrieved. Versions are kept forever; a changed file becomes a new version, never a silent replacement.
- Extract claims. The researcher writes each material statement in plain language with a page or section reference and notes anything uncertain.
- Review against the original. A subject reviewer checks every claim against the document itself, including tables, footnotes and exceptions.
- Write the explanation. An editor writes the page answer-first, keeps conditions and exceptions next to the statements they qualify, and links every material claim.
- Second review for high-impact content. Anything about eligibility, money, deadlines or irreversible project steps gets a second reviewer.
- Publish with provenance. The page shows its author, reviewer, verification status, applicable scope and date, and a review date is scheduled.
What the labels mean
| Label | Meaning | How to read it |
|---|---|---|
| Source verified by our team | A reviewer matched the statement to identified official evidence. | Describes our verification work. It is not an official endorsement. |
| Expert explanation | Interpretation or practical guidance that goes beyond the source wording. | Shown separately from quoted provisions. Confirm with the authority before acting. |
| Awaiting verification | Evidence or review is incomplete. | We avoid definitive answers and never feed such content into tools. |
| Under review | A possible conflict or material change is being checked. | Treat with caution until the review completes. |
| Superseded | Kept for historical context. | Links to current guidance; excluded from default results. |
Labels use our own wording and design. They are never made to resemble a government seal.
Which sources count
In order of weight: issuing-authority notifications, guidelines and amendments; official state implementation documents; official FAQs and clarifications, recorded with their issuing body and status; expert experience, clearly labelled as interpretation. Third-party articles, news and partner claims can raise a research question but never establish a rule. When sources conflict, we resolve by authority, jurisdiction, scope, effective date and explicit amendment. A newer upload does not automatically replace every older provision. When authority is unclear we pause the claim and ask the appropriate official channel.
Scope is explicit
Every claim carries the scheme, the state or jurisdiction, and the period it applies to. National framework provisions are never presented as proof that a state window is open or that a budget is available. A state page is published only after our team has verified state-level sources; otherwise the page says “Information not yet verified for this state” and points to official channels.
Review cadence
Sources with active application windows are checked daily; other high-impact sources weekly; the whole register is reviewed monthly. An automated monitor also compares each official document with its last checked version and raises a review task when it changes. A hash change is a signal to inspect, not proof that a rule changed. Rechecking a link is not a new verification and does not refresh the verification date.
Corrections
Every factual page has a “Report an issue” form and a version history showing date, change, reason and affected scope. Reports about material accuracy are triaged the same business day. When an error is confirmed we preserve an audit record, correct the page and every dependent page, answer or checklist, and, where appropriate and permitted, notify people who saved an affected result. We do not change dates to create an appearance of freshness.
Questions and answers
Answers go through the same checks as articles. A question is published only as an anonymised version, only with the asker's permission, and only after the answer exists. Where the official material does not resolve a question we say so and direct the asker to the authority.
Use of automated tools
We do not publish machine-generated scheme advice. Software may help with drafting, translation and monitoring, but every monetary condition, eligibility statement and deadline is reviewed by a competent person before publication. Any future document assistant will be limited to approved document versions, will cite page and section, and will say when a document does not settle a question.
Complaints about content
Use “Report an issue” on the page, or write to info@nhbsubsidy.com. Disagreements between experts are escalated to the editorial lead with the evidence and reasoning retained.
Effective: 7 September 2026 (version 1).