Editorial Standards

Every factual claim in an MMT article must trace back to a verifiable source. That means federal register notices, contract award data, budget documents, official agency statements, or named sources with direct knowledge.

I don't publish rumors. I don't cite "sources familiar with the matter" without explaining why they can't be named. If the sourcing isn't strong enough, the analysis waits until it is.

When I cite data, I link to the original source whenever possible. Contract values come from FPDS, SAM.gov, or USAspending.gov. Budget numbers come from congressional documents or agency justification books. I don't round numbers to make them sound better.

I get things wrong sometimes. When that happens, here's what I do:

• 1. Fix the error in the original article immediately.
• 2. Add a visible correction note at the top of the article stating what was wrong and what the correct information is.
• 3. If the error was in a newsletter issue, note the correction in the next issue.
• 4. Never silently edit published analysis. Every substantive change gets a note.

Typos and formatting fixes don't get correction notes. Factual errors, misattributions, and analytical errors always do.

I use AI tools in my workflow. Here's exactly how, and where the line is.

ProposalPulse and MarketPulse use AI to generate assessments and research briefs. Those tools are clearly labeled as AI-powered, and the security page explains exactly how your data is handled.

Mission Meets Tech has no sponsors, no advertising, and no vendor partnerships that influence coverage. The newsletter is free, twice a week. Revenue comes from paid tools and research products, including ProposalPulse assessments and MarketPulse briefs.

No company can pay to be covered, pay to avoid being covered, or pay to shape how they're covered. If I write about a vendor, a program, or an agency, it's because the topic matters to the audience — not because someone asked me to.

If that ever changes — if MMT ever accepts sponsorship or advertising — I'll disclose it clearly on this page and in every affected article.

I'm Mary Womack. I write under my own name. My career has been inside DoD, DHA, VA, and civilian agencies — working on the systems that actually reach clinicians and service members. I'm not an outside observer guessing at how federal health IT works. I've been in the rooms where these decisions get made.

Guest contributors and podcast co-hosts are identified by name with their relevant experience. Nobody publishes anonymously on MMT. If someone's perspective shaped an analysis, they're credited.

Full team bios are on the about page.

Federal health IT moves fast. Contract awards change, budget numbers get revised, programs get restructured. When that happens, I update the relevant analysis with new information and mark the update clearly.

There's a difference between an update and a correction. An update adds new information that wasn't available when the original was published. A correction fixes something I got wrong. Both are labeled, but they mean different things.

• ‣ Update: "Since publication, DHA has announced..." — new facts added.
• ‣ Correction: "This article originally stated X. The correct figure is Y." — error fixed.