This document sets the rules for how every document in the eFind Trust Framework is written, structured, and kept consistent. It exists so that our agreements and policies read as one clear, honest voice, and so that a business owner can understand every paragraph without a lawyer beside them. Good legal writing is a promise kept in plain sight, and these standards are how we keep it.
The eFind Trust Framework is a library of connected documents. When many people write many documents over many years, the writing tends to drift. One author prefers dense, defensive language; another writes loosely; a third borrows a phrase from a contract they read somewhere else. Left unmanaged, the library slowly becomes inconsistent, hard to read, and hard to trust. These Writing Standards exist to prevent that drift. They give every author, reviewer, and approver a shared set of rules so that the framework stays clear, original, accurate, and consistent no matter who writes the next document or when.
The purpose is not to make our documents sound like a law firm. The purpose is to make our documents trustworthy. A reader trusts a document more when it is easy to follow, when the same word means the same thing on every page, when the facts never contradict each other, and when the writing plainly belongs to eFind rather than being copied from somebody else. These standards turn those goals into concrete, checkable requirements.
This document is also a working tool. It is the reference an author opens before starting a new document, the checklist a reviewer runs before approving one, and the authority the Office of Trust and Legal cites when it asks for a change. Where the framework needs a rule about how something is written, that rule lives here.
These standards apply to every document published as part of the Trust Framework, including agreements, privacy notices, product and platform policies, security commitments, and governance documents. They apply to the full text of each document: the title, the body, the callouts, the tables, the cross-references, and the closing information. They apply equally to a brand-new document and to any revision of an existing one.
These standards govern how documents are written and presented. They do not decide what a document says on the merits. Whether a particular clause is fair, whether a particular commitment is one eFind wants to make, and whether a document is legally sufficient are questions for the substance of the document and for the review process described in the Governance document. In short, these standards govern form, voice, and consistency; Governance and the responsible teams govern content and approval.
Where a formatting choice is dictated by the shared page template or stylesheet rather than by an author, the template controls, and authors should not fight it. These standards describe the writing that authors are responsible for, not the visual theme, which is handled centrally so that color, spacing, and branding stay uniform across the whole library.
These standards bind everyone who creates or changes a Trust Framework document. That includes eFind writers who draft and edit; members of the legal team who provide language and review it for enforceability; product, engineering, security, and privacy specialists who contribute technical or factual content; and reviewers and approvers who sign off before a document is published. If you touch the words in the framework, these standards apply to you.
They also apply to any contractor, outside counsel, or agency that eFind engages to help draft or revise a document. Anyone writing on eFind's behalf writes to the same standard as an eFind employee. Contributions that do not meet these standards are returned for correction before they can be published.
They do not create rights or obligations for readers of the framework. An Advertiser, Publisher, or User is not bound by this document; it is an internal standard about how we write, offered publicly for transparency. Readers benefit from these standards indirectly, through documents that are clearer and more reliable because of them.
Capitalized terms used in this document, such as Advertiser, Publisher, Trust Framework, and Personal Information, have the meanings given in the Master Definitions. A few terms are specific to how the framework is written, and this document defines them where they first appear. Where this document uses a term of art from writing or editing rather than a defined legal term, it uses it in its ordinary sense.
Every document in the framework is written in plain English. Plain English does not mean simplistic or vague, and it does not mean giving up legal precision. It means saying what we mean in the clearest words that still carry the intended meaning. A clause can be exact and readable at the same time, and when the two goals appear to conflict, we look for a wording that serves both rather than sacrificing clarity.
Authors write in short, direct sentences wherever a short sentence will do. They prefer common words to rare ones, active voice to passive voice, and concrete nouns to abstract ones. They break long ideas into lists, and long documents into clearly labeled sections, so a reader can find and follow one idea at a time. They explain a technical concept the first time it matters rather than assuming the reader already knows it.
Authors do not use archaic legal filler. Words and phrases such as “whereas,” “hereinafter,” “heretofore,” “notwithstanding the foregoing,” “said party,” and “the party of the first part” are not used. They add length and a false sense of authority without adding meaning. Where such a phrase seems necessary, it is almost always a sign that the underlying sentence should be rewritten. Authors also avoid stacked qualifiers, triple negatives, and sentences so long that a reader loses the subject before reaching the verb.
The practical goal is that a competent business owner with no legal training can read any document in the framework and understand what it asks of them, what it promises, and where to go for more. We test our writing against that reader, not against a specialist. When a passage would confuse that reader, the passage is wrong, even if it is technically correct. Clarity is a feature of the document, not a courtesy.
Plain English is a discipline, not a reading level. Some framework documents cover genuinely complex subjects, such as international data transfers or invalid-traffic detection. Plain English does not remove that complexity; it presents the complexity as clearly as the subject allows, and it never hides behind jargon to seem more authoritative.
Every framework document is built from the same parts, in the same order. A reader who learns the shape of one document has learned the shape of all of them, and can move through the library with confidence. The required parts are set out below. A document may add sections within the body as its subject requires, but it may not drop or reorder the core elements.
A fixed anatomy serves the reader and the framework at once. The reader always knows where to look: the purpose is near the top, and the definitions are always in the same place. The framework benefits because a uniform structure makes documents easier to review, easier to compare, and easier to update in bulk when a shared fact changes. The consistency itself signals care, and care is what earns trust.
Documents use a single, consistent heading hierarchy so that structure is obvious from the headings alone. The hierarchy runs from the broadest grouping down to the finest point, and authors use each level for its intended purpose rather than for visual effect.
Headings describe content; they are not skipped to achieve a visual look. An author does not jump from a Part straight to a fine sub-point without the section level in between, because the reader relies on the levels to understand how ideas relate. Headings are written as plain, informative phrases, not as full sentences and not as single cryptic words. A good heading tells the reader what the section is about before they read a word of the body. Lists are used for parallel items, steps, and conditions; ordered lists show sequence or priority, and unordered lists show a set without ranking.
Terminology drift is one of the most common ways a legal library loses accuracy. If “Advertiser” means one thing in the Advertiser Agreement and something slightly different in the Privacy Policy, the whole framework becomes unreliable. The framework prevents this with a strict discipline built around the Master Definitions.
The Master Definitions is the single authoritative glossary for the framework. Every capitalized term used across our agreements and policies is defined there once. Authors draw their capitalized terms from that glossary rather than redefining them locally. A term defined in the Master Definitions keeps the same meaning wherever it appears, in singular or plural, in every document. This is what lets a reader trust that a word means the same thing on page ten of one document as it does on page one of another.
Sometimes a document needs a term that is specific to its own subject and does not belong in the shared glossary. In that case the author defines the term inside the document, at or near the point where it is first used, and says plainly that the definition is local. If a document needs to add nuance to a defined term for its own limited purpose, it states clearly that it is doing so and for what matter, consistent with the override rule in the Master Definitions. Authors do not silently give a defined term a new meaning; a defined term is never redefined by implication.
A capitalized term is a promise to the reader that the word carries its defined meaning. Authors capitalize a defined term consistently and do not capitalize an ordinary word just because it feels important. When a common word is used in its ordinary sense rather than as a defined term, it stays lowercase so the reader is not misled into hunting for a definition that does not exist. This discipline keeps the signal meaningful: capitalization means “look this up in the glossary,” and nothing else.
Before publishing, an author checks every capitalized term in a document against the Master Definitions. If the term is defined there, the usage must match. If it is not, either the term should be lowercase, or it needs a local definition, or the glossary itself needs to be updated through Governance. No capitalized term should ever be left undefined.
A legal library is only as trustworthy as its least accurate fact. If one document lists a support email that no longer works, or names a different governing law than its neighbor, a reader has reason to doubt everything. The framework treats a small set of core facts as fixed values that must appear identically wherever they are used.
The following facts are canonical across the framework and must be stated the same way in every document that mentions them:
| Fact | Canonical value |
|---|---|
| Legal entity | eFind LLC |
| Registered address | 2451 West Grapevine Mills Circle, Suite 324, Grapevine, TX 76051, United States |
| Governing law and venue | State of Texas; state or federal courts of Tarrant County, Texas |
| Support phone | 1-214-444-8126 |
| Support email | support@efind.com |
| Closing statement | Building Technology People Can Trust. |
| Copyright line | © 2026 eFind. All rights reserved. |
Authors do not paraphrase a canonical fact, shorten an address, reformat a phone number, or restate the governing law in their own words. They use the exact value. When one of these facts changes, for example if eFind moves its offices or updates a contact channel, the change is made across the whole library as a coordinated update through Governance, not document by document. This is why the facts are kept few and fixed: a small, stable set is easy to keep perfectly aligned, and perfect alignment is what a reader is entitled to expect.
Every document in the framework speaks in the same voice: professional, confident, modern, and readable. The voice is that of a serious technology company that respects its readers and has nothing to hide. It is enterprise-grade without being stiff, and approachable without being casual.
The framework exists to reflect eFind's values: Trust, Privacy, Transparency, Security, Responsible AI, Accountability, Fairness, User Protection, and Enterprise Governance. These values are not slogans pasted onto the documents; they show up in how the documents are written. Transparency means we explain what we do rather than hiding it in defensive clauses. Fairness means we do not use one-sided language to trap a reader. Accountability means we say who is responsible for what. When an author is unsure how to phrase something, the values are a reliable guide: choose the wording that a trustworthy, transparent, accountable company would choose.
Documents in the framework are written to be usable by as many people as possible, including people who use assistive technology and people for whom English is a second language.
Authors write with a clear heading structure so that a screen reader can move through a document by its sections. Links are written so that their text describes where they lead, rather than relying on phrases like “click here.” Tables are used for genuine tabular data, with clear headers, not to force a visual layout. Meaning is never carried by color or position alone, because the shared stylesheet controls presentation and a reader may experience the document very differently from how it looks on a standard screen.
Authors write in language that includes rather than excludes. We address the reader directly as “you” where a document is written to a person or organization, which is clearer and more respectful than the third person. We avoid gendered assumptions, and we describe people and businesses in neutral terms. We choose examples that reflect a wide range of readers rather than a narrow one. Inclusive language is not a matter of fashion; it is part of writing that treats every reader as welcome.
The framework is a connected library, and its documents refer to one another constantly. Cross-references are how the library holds together, so they follow consistent rules.
When a document refers to another framework document, it names the document and links to it, so the reader can go straight to the source rather than searching. Links within the framework are written as root-relative paths, such as /legal/governance, so they keep working no matter how the site is deployed. Authors refer to a document by its proper title, matching the way that document names itself, so a reader is never left wondering whether two differently named references point to the same thing.
A cross-reference is a promise that the other document says what the reference implies. Authors do not point a reader to a document for a rule that document does not contain. When a document is renamed or retired, every reference to it is checked and corrected through Governance, so the library never sends a reader to a page that no longer exists or no longer means what the reference claimed. Every document also carries a Related Documents section near its end, listing the handful of other documents most useful to a reader of that document, which gives the reader a reliable path through the library without cluttering the body with links.
Examples and callouts help a reader understand a rule, but they are used with care so they never contradict or quietly enlarge the rule they illustrate.
An example makes an abstract rule concrete. When an author gives an example, it is clearly an example and not a limit: the framework uses “includes” and “including” to introduce examples, and, as the Master Definitions confirm, those words give instances without narrowing the meaning of what comes before them. An example never adds a requirement that the surrounding text does not already contain. If an example seems to create a new rule, the rule belongs in the body, stated directly, not smuggled in through an illustration.
Callouts are short, highlighted notes that draw attention to something important without interrupting the main flow. The framework uses a small, fixed set of callout styles so their meaning is consistent: a plain note for helpful context, a warning style for something a reader must be careful about, and a positive style for a good practice or reassurance. Callouts summarize or emphasize; they do not introduce obligations that appear nowhere else in the document. If a reader could be bound by something, that something lives in the ordinary body text, where it carries full weight, and a callout may point to it but never replaces it.
A callout is never the only place a rule appears. If deleting every callout from a document would remove a requirement, the document is written incorrectly. Callouts guide the reader; they do not carry obligations on their own.
Every sentence in the framework is written originally for eFind. Authors do not copy the legal language of other companies, whether from a competitor, a template, a form-contract vendor, or any other source. This rule is absolute, and it exists for both ethical and practical reasons.
Copied language is a liability disguised as a shortcut. Another company's terms were written for that company's products, structure, risks, and jurisdiction, none of which match eFind exactly. Language lifted from elsewhere may promise things eFind cannot deliver, omit protections eFind needs, or use defined terms that mean nothing in our framework. Copying also raises intellectual-property and honesty concerns that are inconsistent with a company built on trust. When we tell readers that these documents are ours, they must actually be ours.
Authors write from the facts of eFind's own products and commitments. It is entirely proper to study how the best legal and policy writers in the industry organize their documents, and to aim for that level of quality and clarity. It is not proper to reproduce their words. The standard is simple: read widely to learn the craft, then write our own document from scratch, in our own voice, describing our own Services. A document that could be dropped onto another company's site with only the name changed has failed this standard.
No matter how carefully a document is written, readers will sometimes find a passage that could be read more than one way. The framework has a settled approach to ambiguity so that these situations are handled predictably rather than by guesswork.
When a passage is ambiguous, a reader should resolve it in this order. First, read the passage in the context of the whole document, because the surrounding sections usually make the intended meaning clear. Second, apply the meanings in the Master Definitions, which control the capitalized terms. Third, read the framework as a whole, giving effect to the document's stated Purpose and Scope and to the values the framework is built to serve. An interpretation that is consistent with the document's purpose and with eFind's commitment to fairness and transparency is preferred over one that is not.
If a genuine ambiguity cannot be resolved by reading, it is treated as a defect in the writing, not a puzzle for the reader to solve at their own risk. The reader is invited to contact eFind for clarification through the support channels the framework provides, and the ambiguity is logged for correction. Authors do not rely on ambiguity as a tactic; a document that leaves a rule unclear is corrected through the review process, not left in place to be argued about later.
eFind's Services reach people in many countries, and the framework is written with that reach in mind.
Authors write in a way that translates cleanly. They avoid idioms, cultural references, and wordplay that would confuse a reader outside the United States or that would not survive translation. Dates are written in a full, unambiguous form, such as July 16, 2026, rather than in a numeric shorthand that means different things in different regions. Where a rule depends on a particular country's law, the document names that law explicitly rather than assuming the reader shares a local context.
When a document is translated into another language, the translation is a convenience for readers and is prepared to the same quality standard as the original. Unless a document states otherwise, the English-language version is the authoritative text, and any conflict between a translation and the English original is resolved in favor of the English. Translations are reviewed for accuracy before publication, and a defined term is translated consistently throughout so that terminology discipline survives the move into another language. A translation is never allowed to change the meaning of a document; if a faithful translation is impossible for a particular passage, the passage is rewritten in the original so that it can be translated faithfully.
eFind uses modern tools, including AI systems, to help draft and improve its documents. The framework welcomes that help while insisting that a human remains responsible for every published word.
AI-assisted drafting may be used to produce a first draft, to suggest clearer wording, to check a document against these standards, or to help find inconsistencies across the library. Used well, it makes documents clearer and more consistent, which serves the reader. eFind treats AI as a capable assistant to its writers, not as a replacement for them, consistent with the company's commitment to Responsible AI.
No document is published on the strength of an AI draft alone. A qualified human reviews every document before publication, confirms that it is accurate, original, and consistent with the rest of the framework, and takes responsibility for it. AI-assisted text is held to exactly the same standards as human-written text: it must be original to eFind, it must use defined terms correctly, it must state the canonical facts exactly, and it must contain no borrowed language. Where AI assistance produces a passage that an author cannot verify or does not fully understand, that passage is rewritten until a human can stand behind it. The AI Content Policy governs AI-generated content more broadly; within the framework, the rule is short and firm: a person is accountable for every document, always.
Human accountability is not a formality. The reviewer who approves a document is vouching that it meets every standard in this document, including originality and factual consistency. That accountability does not transfer to a tool, no matter how the draft was produced.
Standards that no one enforces are only suggestions. These Writing Standards are enforced through the framework's Governance process, described in the Governance document, so that compliance is checked before a document reaches a reader rather than after.
Before any framework document is published or revised, it is reviewed against these standards. The review confirms that the document has the required anatomy, uses the heading hierarchy correctly, draws its defined terms from the Master Definitions, states the canonical facts exactly, speaks in the framework voice, and contains no copied language. A document that does not meet these standards is returned to its author for correction and is not published until it does. The Office of Trust and Legal owns this document and has the authority to require changes to any framework document that departs from it.
These Writing Standards are themselves a framework document, and they follow their own rules. They have the required anatomy, they use the defined terms, and they are maintained under the same Governance change control as every other document. They are amended only through the Governance process, so the rules that keep the library consistent are themselves kept consistent. When these standards change, the change is recorded, and existing documents are brought into line over time through the ordinary revision process rather than all at once, unless the change is urgent enough to require immediate correction.
The final test for any writing decision in the framework is trust. If a choice makes a document clearer, more honest, more consistent, and more plainly eFind's own, it is the right choice, and these standards will support it. If a choice makes a document harder to trust, no amount of technical correctness can save it. Everything in this document exists to serve that single end: a library of documents that readers can rely on, because the people who wrote them cared enough to write them well.
Building Technology People Can Trust.
© 2026 eFind. All rights reserved.