HOW WE WORK
Editorial policy
Mew & Maple produces practical guides about indoor-cat living, enrichment and home setup. Our goal is to explain trade-offs and common risks clearly, not to promise a universal answer for every cat.
Sources and factual claims
When an article makes a welfare or safety claim, we look for relevant veterinary, academic or established feline-welfare guidance. Sources should support the specific statement, not merely discuss the same broad topic. We distinguish guidance from a manufacturer's product claims and explain important limitations.
Animal safety and professional advice
Our content is general educational information, not diagnosis or individualized veterinary advice. Changes in appetite, mobility, elimination, behavior or suspected ingestion of foreign material warrant advice from a qualified veterinarian. We do not identify individual cats' medical needs from editorial illustrations.
Illustrations and AI assistance
Images in the current guide collection are AI-assisted editorial illustrations or diagrams, not photographs of products we purchased, installed or tested. A visual example does not establish that an attachment, houseplant, toy, window mount or piece of furniture is safe. Captions identify known visual limitations where relevant. Drafts may be AI-assisted, but cited claims and safety warnings are separately checked as part of editorial review.
Products and commercial relationships
We do not claim firsthand product experience, lab testing or veterinarian endorsement without evidence. If future articles include affiliate links, sponsored coverage or products sold by Mew & Maple, the relationship should be disclosed where readers encounter the recommendation. Commercial interests must not be presented as independent test results.
Corrections and updates
Material errors should be corrected promptly when identified. Significant factual changes should be explained or dated on the affected article. Content may also be updated as guidance changes; an update date does not by itself prove a full scientific review was repeated.