Editorial methodology
How Boermans Digital handles sources, analysis and corrections
This page explains what counts as a sourced fact, Boermans analysis, hypothetical example or public case — and how material errors are corrected.
Updated 4 September 2026 · Boermans Digital
Quick answer
Sources support facts; decision frameworks remain visibly our own analysis
Boermans Digital separates sourced facts, interpretation and its own models where practical. Claims that depend on legislation, standards, official product documentation or a public case link to the original source. Our scores, selection matrices and hypothetical examples are not presented as external standards.
Authorship
Who is responsible for the content?
Pages list Boermans Digital as author when content is editorially assembled by the brand. Joshua Boermans is the public point of contact and his demonstrable expertise in Automation and Managed File Transfer is linked separately through his public profile and Korper context. On relevant guides he may therefore be shown as expert context. This does not automatically mean that he personally wrote or formally reviewed the text; personal authorship or a formal review is only stated when it has explicitly been established.
Source hierarchy
Which sources get priority?
| Type | Use | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Primary legal or standards source | For regulation, formal requirements and public frameworks. | EUR-Lex, NIST, OWASP. |
| Official product or vendor documentation | For technical capabilities or domain definitions tied to a product/domain. | IBM Think, UiPath Docs, Fortra/Korper where relevant. |
| Public case | For published outcomes or project context, with the case owner clearly identified. | Korper/Fortra customer cases. |
| Our decision framework | For preliminary assessment and decision support. | Boermans selection model, MFT readiness score. |
| Hypothetical example | To explain a method without making a customer claim. | Illustrative ROI or process examples. |
Claim status
How to read statements on the site
- Sourced fact: directly supported by a visible external source.
- Our analysis: Boermans Digital explains the practical implications of a source or situation.
- Our decision framework: an editorial model for orientation; not a scientific or official standard unless explicitly stated.
- Hypothetical example: illustrative and not presented as a real customer case.
- Not established: if a public source does not report an outcome, Boermans Digital does not fill in that outcome.
Corrections
How errors and changes are handled
Report a factual error or outdated source via joshua.boermans@korper.nl. Material corrections or substantive revisions receive an updated modified date. Minor editorial changes such as spelling or formatting do not necessarily change the substantive modification date.
When uncertain, we prefer weakening or removing a claim over making it stronger than the source supports.
Independence & relationship
How Korper and vendor relationships are represented
Boermans Digital refers specialist implementation to Korper ICT and discloses that relationship. Public Korper cases remain Korper/vendor cases; they are not presented as Boermans Digital customer work. A reference to a vendor, product or partner is not an automatic recommendation: technology follows process fit, risk, manageability and business case.
Freshness
When is content reviewed?
Pages show a visible Updated date when content changes materially. For regulation, security frameworks and fast-moving technology, primary and current sources take priority. Draft sources or interpretive material are identified as such.