Editorial standards

Show the connection.
Show the evidence.

Start with the exact qualification

We distinguish families, full titles, and product generations. An acronym alone is not enough to reconstruct a person’s exam history. Track summaries are not exhaustive records of all historical electives and upgrade routes.

Use primary sources

Microsoft credential pages, study guides, retirement notices, and archived Microsoft material take priority. Each reference page lists its sources and the date they were checked. When a notice contains an updated date and older text, the explicitly dated update takes precedence.

Explain our recommendations

Pathways compare familiar skills with a target role, identify gaps, and suggest practical work. They are editorial recommendations. A similar skill set does not establish an official replacement, exam exemption, or guarantee of employment.

Keep status explicit

Credential status and page publication status are separate. Retired role-based credentials may remain in the directory to explain older advice; they are visibly marked as unavailable. We aim to check current credentials monthly and pathway guidance quarterly.

Corrections

For now, corrections are handled through the project maintainer and private repository review. Include the page URL, the disputed statement, and a dated primary source. A public contact channel will be added when the site operator provides one.

Scope of the first edition

Six later-era legacy track summaries and three skills pathways form the starting collection. Complete exam histories, earlier Systems-era tracks, and redirects from the previous website require a separate archive review.