Terms of Use

Site materials are provided for public understanding, civic discussion and evidence review. Readers may quote, link to and discuss the material, but should preserve the page context, source limitations and confidence labels when reusing claims, figures, charts or downloads.

War-related evidence can be misused when copied without dates, source categories or caveats. Reuse should not present analysis as verified fact, scenarios as forecasts, placeholder material as approved publication, or generated text as an official statement from the project.

Generated letters and action-tool outputs are drafts for the user to review, edit and send outside the site. The MVP does not automatically submit, email or post messages to representatives, public bodies, media outlets or third-party services.

This distinction matters because a generated draft may contain user-provided details, policy wording or factual claims that need checking before use. Users remain responsible for reading the draft, correcting it, removing sensitive details and deciding whether to send it.

Attribution should identify The Cost of War page being cited and the underlying public source where a claim depends on a source record. A citation should distinguish the site’s analysis from the original source’s finding instead of making the source responsible for every conclusion on the page.

When citing data, downloads or charts, include the row label or indicator, period, geography and checked date where available. If a correction later changes a figure, attribution should use the corrected version and avoid circulating the superseded wording.

The site is an evidence-led public-information project, not legal, medical, financial, security or immigration advice. Its pages may summarise public records, analysis, scenario work and editorial judgments, but users should check primary sources and qualified advisers before relying on material for formal decisions.

Some pages and downloads are marked as placeholders, drafts or awaiting review. Those labels are part of the terms of use: they tell readers not to treat unfinished material as complete, verified or legally reviewed. Corrections, source updates and translated pages may also change over time.

Terms should explain practical responsibilities without turning a public-information site into a legal maze. Readers need to know what they can reuse, what they must check, and where the site’s limits begin before they rely on a page, chart, download or generated letter.

Plain language is especially important because the site covers war, displacement, public policy and evidence disputes. A simple sentence should still preserve the legal and editorial boundary: generated content is a draft, source-backed content has limits, and reviewed terms are still needed before launch.

The terms should direct readers to a clear correction route when they find an error in wording, data, translation, attribution, charts or downloads. Correction access is part of editorial accountability, not only a contact convenience.

A correction route should ask for enough detail to review the issue: page URL, quoted text, source evidence, affected date range and whether related outputs such as CSV files or translated pages may need an update.

Terms should name a practical contact route for reuse questions, corrections, privacy requests and organisational enquiries. On this site the configured editorial email is admin@thecostofwar.net, and the contact page gives fuller routing context.

Contact information should not invite high-risk submissions through ordinary email. Public sources, correction notes and routine questions can use the visible address; confidential testimony, security reports or identifying details need a dedicated secure workflow before collection.

Review guidance should tell users what must be checked before they reuse material or send a generated letter. Users should verify names, dates, source status, confidence labels, data units, personal details and whether a claim is a verified fact, analysis, scenario or placeholder.

The site can support review by keeping source records, limitations, correction routes and download metadata visible. It should not promise that every generated output is complete, current, legally reviewed or appropriate for every recipient.