How ContractBuilderAI researches contractor content

Our standard: show the source and separate the claim

Our public educational pages aim to make clear which statements come from statute, which come from agency guidance, which describe how our software behaves and which are our own editorial explanation. Mixing those together makes content harder to trust and harder to check.

Where a page relies on a law or official publication, we link to it so readers can inspect the underlying material themselves. Our summaries are a starting point, not a substitute for the controlling source. Nothing on our site is legal advice, and our pages are not written to tell any reader what the law requires for their specific project.

Sources do not always agree. If a secondary summary conflicts with current statutory text, the current primary source controls the page's factual framing. If official guidance appears inconsistent with, or narrower than, the statutory text, we present the distinction rather than silently merging the two. Genuine legal ambiguity is not presented as settled. And when a source does not support a conclusion, we say so rather than fill the gap with assumption. These are research principles for educational content, not legal advice about how any rule applies to a particular project.

Primary sources come first

For California contractor content, we prefer sources in this order:

1. California Legislative Information — the current statutory text.
2. Contractors State License Board (CSLB) — official guidance for licensed contractors and consumers.
3. Other official California agency or court materials, when they are directly relevant to the topic.
4. Secondary sources, used only for context and never as a substitute for controlling text.

This hierarchy describes how we research. It does not mean every page has been reviewed by an attorney, and we do not represent our content that way.

Statute, agency guidance and explanation are not the same thing

Each type of material plays a different role. We try not to present them as interchangeable.

Product claims must match the software

Public statements about what ContractBuilderAI does should be checked against current product behavior and source before they are published. Planned features should not be described as live. The software supports contractor decisions; it does not independently decide every legal issue, and our product copy aims to avoid unsupported legal conclusions.

In practice, that means distinguishing implemented, live behavior from planned, experimental or future functionality, and saying which is which. If a product behavior changes materially, the affected public product copy should be re-reviewed so it still matches what the software does. Marketing copy should describe what a workflow does — for example, that it presents a review checkpoint before sending — rather than turning product behavior into a legal guarantee.

Review dates and update triggers

Substantive California resource pages show a last-reviewed date. We aim to review a page when any of the following happens:

• a statutory change affecting the topic;
• a material CSLB guidance change;
• a product behavior change that affects how the page describes the software;
• a discovered factual error.

A review date means the content was reviewed on that date. It is not a guarantee that the law or guidance has not changed since.

Substantive review can also be prompted by an amendment to a statute, a material CSLB update, newly relevant official guidance or court material, or a change in how the product behaves. A review should focus on the affected claim and its relationship to the source, not merely change the date at the top of the page. If no source supports a previously published claim, the claim should be corrected or removed. We do not promise a fixed review cadence.

Examples, checklists and fictional scenarios

Fictional project examples should be labeled as fictional. Checklists are workflow aids that help contractors organize their review; they are not universal legal determinations. Examples are not represented as approved forms. Contractors remain responsible for adapting documents to their actual project and jurisdiction.

Corrections

When we identify a material factual error, we correct it. We update the affected public content and, where appropriate, its review date. We do not silently keep content we know to be inaccurate. If you believe something on our site is wrong, you can report a suspected error through Contact Us. We review reports as they arrive but do not promise a fixed response time.

A correction should address the affected claim itself, the source link that supports it and, where appropriate, the review date. For material corrections we favor clarity over preserving earlier wording, so a corrected passage may be rewritten rather than lightly patched. Correcting one page does not imply that every page is continuously monitored. The most useful reports include the page URL and the exact disputed statement, so the claim can be checked against its source.

Legal and professional-review limits

• ContractBuilderAI is software, not a law firm.
• Our public content is educational information, not legal advice.
• Using our site or software does not create an attorney-client relationship.
• ContractBuilderAI is not affiliated with or endorsed by the CSLB or any government agency.
• We recommend review by a qualified attorney when appropriate for your situation.
• We do not state that attorney review has occurred unless that review is documented.

How to use our California resource library

Questions or corrections

To ask a question or report a suspected error, use the Contact us link in the footer of this page, or email [email protected]. Please include the page address and the statement you believe needs review.