AI, Data & Community Methodology
Product methodology · updated July 12, 2026
Purpose and boundary
Apertux organizes educational evidence so users can better understand securities, market events, and existing holdings. It does not select investments, provide personalized allocations, predict outcomes, or execute transactions. Plaza adds structured user discussion but does not convert community opinion into Apertux research.
Apertux research structure
Apertux research presents a summary, evidence, quality and valuation context, favorable/base/adverse scenarios, risks, conflicting evidence, uncertainty, missing information, source references, and questions to consider. Recommendation labels, price targets, guaranteed outcomes, stop-loss instructions, and personalized allocation instructions are prohibited.
Plaza Market Note structure
A Market Note records the author's language, post type, topic, optional ticker, time horizon, stance, thesis, reasoning, counterpoint, at least one HTTPS source, position or relationship disclosure, AI-assistance state, and policy attestation. This structure improves transparency but does not establish accuracy. Comments are shorter and are moderated without being presented as sourced Market Notes.
Plaza drafting assistant
A member can begin with a plain-language thought or use the manual Market Note form. The drafting assistant can organize only the member's supplied meaning into editable note fields; Draft Coach can later suggest clearer wording, stronger sourcing, a genuine counterargument, and a complete conflict disclosure. Neither tool publishes, adds a verified source, changes the member's view without confirmation, or determines whether a security is suitable. Using either tool marks the post as AI-assisted and consumes the applicable daily allowance.
Moderation pipeline
New notes and comments pass deterministic validation, rate limits, and automated risk assessment. Low-risk items may publish; uncertain, unavailable, medium, high, or critical assessments can be held for human review. Assessments record provider, model, policy version, risk categories, evidence spans, recommended action, and confidence when available. Failures default to hold rather than automatic publication.
Human decisions, reports, and appeals
Authorized administrators review cases, evidence, reports, account history, and applicable policy before a final action. Actions and reasons are written to an audit log. Members may report suspected scams, manipulation, misinformation, undisclosed conflicts, impersonation, harassment, hate, privacy violations, or spam. Eligible affected users can appeal; an administrator reviews and records whether to uphold or overturn the decision.
Trusted reviewers and context notes
Trusted reviewers may add sourced context that is separately labelled and rated. Reviewer status is limited, can change, and never grants enforcement authority. Context Notes are not endorsements, do not replace original sources, and may themselves be reviewed, rejected, or removed.
Data freshness and sources
Market prices, charts, and news identify Polygon as the provider and display delayed/end-of-day or unavailable freshness with the latest timestamp. Manual portfolio records are user-entered. Community sources are selected by users and are not independently verified merely because Apertux displays them. Educational profiles and scenarios are explanatory assumptions, not live facts or forecasts.
AI governance and limitations
Model, prompt, methodology, source set, policy version, validation result, and corrections are versioned where applicable. Credentials and unnecessary personal data are excluded from AI requests. AI may produce false positives, false negatives, fabricated details, or imperfect translations; labels and scores are signals, not factual, legal, or investment determinations.
Independent verification
Verify important information through SEC EDGAR, official issuer investor-relations pages, Investor.gov, FINRA BrokerCheck, exchange notices, and original documents. Check timestamps, security identifiers, author identity, and conflicts. Never rely on social popularity or an Apertux moderation outcome as proof that a claim is true.