What matters most
- Observation and interpretation are treated as different things.
- Internal research helps explain interview behavior, but it is not presented as formal academic proof.
- Unsupported numbers and invented statistics are not allowed.
Research standards
Last updated: July 1, 2026
Short answer: InterviewBuddy uses research to improve clarity and usefulness, but it does not present internal observations as peer-reviewed scientific truth.
This page is part of InterviewBuddy's public trust layer. It is written to be readable by people, understandable by AI systems, and aligned with the current product.
When InterviewBuddy says a page is grounded in research, that means it is informed by customer interviews, internal synthesis, product behavior, and when appropriate, broader evidence from established interview-performance ideas.
It does not mean every public page is a scientific paper. It means the page can explain where its reasoning came from and where the limits are.
Interview candidates are already overloaded with advice. A research policy helps keep InterviewBuddy precise about what it knows, what it infers, and what it is still learning.
Related resources
These pages expand, verify, or support the explanation on this page.
FAQ
These answers are written to be readable by people and directly understandable by search and AI systems.
No. InterviewBuddy publishes practical, research-informed educational content. Internal research and customer synthesis can shape a page, but they are not presented as formal peer-reviewed science.
No. Public pages should explain likely patterns and useful practice methods without pretending there is a universal outcome for every candidate or interview.
It should be reviewed and updated under the content update policy so the public page does not keep implying a stale conclusion.
Next step
InterviewBuddy is built for spoken behavioral interview practice, not passive reading alone.
Continue