Editorial policy

David's Morning Brief is an AI-assisted editorial intelligence digest built from public sources. It is designed to help readers see useful signals quickly, understand why they matter, and follow the original reporting or primary material for verification. It is not a substitute for the underlying sources, and it is not sponsored editorial.

What David adds

Each issue combines source discovery, summarization, editorial judgment, analysis, and visual editing. The summaries, David's Analysis, and custom-created editorial visuals are original to the brief; linked articles, company materials, trademarks, charts, and credited third-party visuals remain the property of their respective owners.

The editorial goal is to turn public material into a useful daily read: what changed, what matters, what is still just positioning, and why it is worth watching.

Editorial guidance

• Signal over volume. A story earns space because it reveals movement in tools, markets, care models, trust, distribution, regulation, infrastructure, or buyer behavior.
• Core fact first. Headlines say what happened. Interpretation, metaphor, and strategic read belong in the supporting copy.
• Public-source discipline. The brief does not use confidential company material, private conversations, or inside information. When it is written with a market-aware lens, that lens is applied only to public facts.
• Analysis with a point of view. David should explain the tension, implication, or practical consequence. Generic “why it matters” copy is treated as a draft problem, not a finished product.

How sources are selected and labeled

• Independent reporting is preferred for lead stories, broad claims, and anything presented as market context.
• Primary sources, including company sites, government pages, research institutions, filings, product pages, and official blogs, may be used when they are the best source for the underlying fact.
• Press releases, wire items, and company announcements may be used as signals, but they should be labeled as company announcements or claims rather than independent reporting.
• Aggregators and syndication pages are avoided when an original source can be found.
• Source identity checks matter. A reachable URL is not enough; production checks are intended to confirm that the page title, source, date, and story identity match the brief.

Independent sources are chosen for domain expertise, sourcing transparency, publication history, and whether the story can be traced back to original reporting or primary material. The brief uses curated, edition-specific editorial source lists, but every story still has to pass source, date, identity, and relevance checks before publication.

Sources by newsletter

These are all distinct source websites credited in sent daily newsletters and published feature articles, grouped by edition. This is a publication record, not a fixed approved-source list: a listed site may have provided independent reporting, research, a public record, or a company announcement. The individual stories link to source material and identify the context for each claim.

How AI is used

AI assists with source discovery, triage, summarization, drafting, headline options, image-candidate review, and editorial synthesis. The workflow also uses automated gates and human-directed review patterns to catch stale links, malformed output, duplicate stories, missing images, bad crops, fake text in generated visuals, and other publication problems. Source links are included so readers can inspect the material behind the summary.

AI output is treated as editorial draft material, not authority. The production system applies source checks, rendering checks, visual QA, and copy rules so the final artifact reflects reviewed editorial judgment rather than unverified model output.

Image and visual policy

The current visual system is predominantly custom-created. In recent production runs, roughly 80–90% of story visuals have been custom editorial artwork or photography created for David's Morning Brief.

Attribution is not permission. Public pages and emails use story-relevant visuals only when the rights or provenance basis is explicit: custom-created/generated-owned editorial artwork or photography, owned or licensed imagery, clearly permitted material, public domain or Creative Commons-compatible media, approved press-kit assets, official/source-provided media, or clean editorial trademark identification.

The remaining visuals are used only when they have an appropriate provenance basis, such as official company identity/logos, brand or product assets, press kits, open-license/public-domain media, licensed stock, or other source-provided material that is suitable for editorial use.

The production workflow is source-first. Before commissioning a custom image, we look for directly relevant company/product/logo/press-kit assets, source-page visuals, and open or reusable image sources such as Wikimedia Commons, Openverse, Pexels, Unsplash, and Pixabay where available. Custom visuals are used when stronger source-truth visuals are unavailable, weak, unsafe, or less useful for explaining the story.

Visual QA rejects fake readable UI, invented labels, fake logos, placeholder copy, blank-screen filler, duplicate imagery, bad crops, and generic stock sludge. For virtual-care photography, the preferred pattern is active clinician/patient interaction rather than empty rooms or device-only scenes.

Virtual Health Care edition

The Virtual Health Care edition is written for a public audience, with a healthcare-market lens that is useful for those who care about access, care delivery, consumer trust, clinical workflow, payer and employer value, regulation, and competitive positioning. It tracks peer companies when they appear in public sources, but it does not treat any company as the owner of the category.

Healthcare stories should avoid generic telehealth triumphalism. The useful questions are sharper: What changed in demand, reimbursement, capacity, trust, routing, outcomes, distribution, or proof? Does the story show adoption, or just availability? Does it make virtual care more connected, measurable, and safe, or merely more visible?

Privacy

Google Analytics has been removed from this site. We do not load its tracking script, create analytics visitor identifiers, or show an analytics consent prompt. A local cleanup script removes the analytics cookies and preference previously used on this hostname. Removing the tag does not erase information previously collected with consent.

Our hosting provider processes the connection information needed to deliver these pages, including IP addresses. We do not currently provide a replacement readership analytics service. Questions or data requests can be sent to the contact below.

Corrections and contact

If something looks wrong, reply to the email or contact david@marksextoncreative.com. Corrections should be made in the source artifact and reflected in future builds, resends, or public-page updates as appropriate.

Not advice

The brief is informational only and is not legal, financial, medical, or investment advice.