Editorial methodology
Make the basis of every claim clear.
Moka Theory uses a simple evidence vocabulary so readers can distinguish what is documented, what is commonly done, what has been observed, and what is recommended.
Evidence vocabulary
- Established fact
- A well-established physical or mechanical principle relevant to how a moka pot works. It should be explained precisely and sourced when a reader would reasonably need verification.
- Manufacturer guidance
- Instructions or recommendations published by a moka pot, grinder, or related equipment manufacturer. The manufacturer and document should be identified because guidance can vary by product.
- Published evidence
- Relevant findings available in a published source. The strength, scope, and limitations of that source should be represented accurately; publication alone does not make every claim conclusive.
- Common practice
- A technique or convention widely used by brewers but not necessarily established by controlled evidence. It should be described as practice, not proof.
- Moka Theory test
- An observation from a test conducted for this publication. The setup, variables, measurements, and limitations should be reported so readers can judge what the result does and does not show.
- Editorial recommendation
- A practical recommendation based on the available evidence, trade-offs, and editorial judgment. Its reasoning should be clear, especially when several workable approaches exist.
Rules for applying it
- Results from any Moka Theory test must identify it as work conducted for this publication.
- An individual test must not be presented as universal scientific proof.
- Conflicting recommendations must be acknowledged instead of silently choosing one.
- Sources should be cited as close as practical to the claim they support.
- Measurements must include units and enough context for a reader to understand them.
- Uncertainty, limitations, and changes in method should be stated plainly.
- Technical illustrations should be checked against the article evidence and must not add unsupported mechanisms, measurements, or model details.
These distinctions help readers assess the articles’ evidence and recommendations. Measurements can explain a process without determining which cup a reader will prefer.