Good question. Protocol 7 Section 7.1 specifies “Visible source links: maximum 2-3, placed naturally where the reader benefits from them.” So the posts do include some links to sources, but sparingly and only where the reader would actually want to click through (a platform’s grading page, a specific study, a manufacturer’s refurbished program page).
The post itself uses natural attribution (“Industry data from Accenture and TechSee found that…,” “Samsung runs 147 checks at the same factories…”) so the reader knows where the information comes from without every sentence being a hyperlink. The full source document with every URL lives behind the scenes and never gets published. It’s the verification record, not a bibliography the reader sees.
The About page line “every claim is backed by something I can point to” is true at both levels. The reader sees named attribution and a handful of useful links in the post. If anyone ever challenges a specific claim, the source document has the full trail. The phrase works without implying the post is footnoted like an academic paper.
That said, reading it again on the About page, “something I can point to” is vague enough that it could mean either “I have sources” or “there are links in the post.” If you want it tighter, it could be “Every recommendation is sourced. Every claim can be traced back to where I found it.” That’s more precise about what “backed” means without promising visible links on every sentence.
Or it’s fine as is. The reader interprets “backed by something I can point to” as “this person does their homework.” Which is true. Your call.