Our editorial standard is simple: keep a menu claim attached to evidence, a location where relevant and a clear scope. A useful guide can acknowledge missing information. It should not invent a price or an experience to appear complete.
Source hierarchy
First, we consult official Canadian restaurant pages and ordering menus for items, prices and availability. Second, we use official nutrition, ingredient and allergen resources for those specific topics. Government resources can support broader food-information guidance. Other publications may help readers discover restaurants, but they do not establish Subway's current prices.
When sources conflict, we prefer current, location-specific information for an actual order. An older campaign page can establish that an offer existed, but it cannot prove that the offer is active now. A search snippet without its conditions is not enough to publish a coupon as valid.
Price verification limits
Any exact amount we publish should identify what was observed and, where available, the restaurant, item, date and ordering context. A listed default price is not described as a verified checkout total. We do not infer an unlisted size from another size or multiply a local example into a national price range.
We may explain arithmetic with variables or clearly hypothetical examples. Those examples teach a comparison method; they are not reported restaurant prices. When reliable data is absent, we explain how the reader can obtain a local quote.
Reviews and update dates
A visible review date refers to an editorial source check. It does not promise that every restaurant has been checked, that stock is confirmed or that the page is monitored continuously. Time-sensitive details should be rechecked directly before a purchase.
The intended update process is to revisit the cited source, identify the changed claim, revise the affected text and change the review date only when that review has occurred. Material corrections should be explained near the changed information when needed for readers to understand the difference.
Corrections
The Contact page identifies the current contact-channel status and the details useful for reporting an error. Once that channel is active, correction reports should be evaluated against the underlying sources. A receipt or reader observation can prompt a review without automatically becoming a nationwide claim.
We do not promise a fixed response deadline. If an important detail cannot be resolved, the appropriate editorial response is to qualify or remove the uncertain claim rather than silently replace it with an estimate.
Recommendations and imagery
Ingredient-led suggestions are editorial interpretations, not documented taste tests. We do not claim visits, interviews, insider access, professional qualifications or testing that have not occurred. Publication bylines identify the site, not a fictional credentialled expert.
Food imagery is illustrative. It should not be used to infer a restaurant's exact portion, ingredient quantity, packaging or presentation. Brand references identify the subject of an article and do not imply permission, endorsement or affiliation.
Advertising and links
This delivered version includes no advertising code or affiliate tracking links. Contextual external links help readers inspect sources or explore a related task. Their presence does not certify a destination's accuracy or imply a commercial partnership.
If paid placements, affiliate arrangements or advertising are added, they should be disclosed clearly and kept separate from editorial conclusions. Paid links should carry appropriate link attributes. An advertiser should not determine a factual menu claim, review date or correction outcome.