21Sep 2026
Next deadline
Closing soonest
- 01
- 02
- 03
- 04
Trust and accuracy
Editorial and Sourcing Policy
The conducting body is authoritative for every exam. Brolly explains stable concepts and preparation methods, cites primary sources where facts can change, and corrects errors without disguising them as routine freshness.
Exam updates · checked 19 September 2026
Application forms closing soon, from the official notices
Every deadline below was read on the conducting body’s own portal. Apply days before the close — the last day is when portals slow down and no commission grants an extension for it.
Evidence hierarchy
Which sources we prefer
- Binding exam facts
- The current notification, corrigendum, syllabus, calendar, answer key or result published by the conducting body. A third-party summary never overrides it.
- Law, policy and public data
- The responsible ministry, regulator, legislature, court, official report or government dataset.
- Stable subject concepts
- Standard textbooks, official curricula and primary institutional references where one exists.
- Preparation recommendations
- Clearly labelled editorial judgment based on the exam structure and past-paper analysis, not presented as a guarantee.
What the review checks
- Intent and completeness — the page should answer the question its title promises without filler.
- Fact and source agreement — dates, units, stages and jurisdiction must match the cited primary source.
- Product truth — test length, access, features and availability must match what a visitor can actually use.
- Search integrity — no keyword stuffing, fabricated proof, copied competitor wording, doorway pages or fake freshness.
Who and how
Authorship, automation and updates
Content may be drafted or checked with software, including automation. Publication responsibility remains with the Brolly Exam Prep editorial team. Automation is not evidence: factual claims still require an appropriate source, and generated wording is reviewed for accuracy, usefulness and unsupported claims.
A person’s name, qualification or reviewer profile is published only after it is verified and supplied for publication. Until then, pages use the organisational byline rather than inventing an expert identity. A modified date changes only when the main content is substantively reviewed or changed.
Related policies
Corrections policy Student outcomes policy Contact the editorial team
Process
How a page on this site is made
The same sequence is followed whether the page is an exam guide, a subject lesson or a method article. It is written down here so that a reader can judge the process rather than take the output on trust.
- Establish what the page is for. One question, one page. If a draft turns out to answer two different questions for two different readers, it becomes two pages rather than a longer one.
- Read the primary source before anything else. For an exam page that is the notification and the syllabus published by the conducting body. For a subject lesson it is the standard reference for the concept. Third-party summaries are not used as the basis of a factual claim.
- Check the evidence for weighting. Past papers, where they exist, decide how much space a topic gets. A syllabus lists topics with equal visual weight and the paper does not.
- Separate fact, inference and recommendation. A structural fact is stated. An inference from past papers is labelled as one. A preparation recommendation is presented as editorial judgement, because that is what it is.
- Strip out anything volatile. Vacancy counts, cutoffs, fees, dates and relaxations are removed and replaced with a pointer to the notification, which is the only document that binds the examiner.
- Check the product claims against the product. Every stated test length, feature and link is checked against what a visitor can actually use. A call to action that leads nowhere is treated as a factual error.
- Review, then publish under the organisational byline. A named byline appears only where an identified author or reviewer has been verified. Until then the responsibility is the editorial team’s, stated as such.
Language
Claims we do not make, and what we write instead
Much of what makes preparation content untrustworthy is not invented fact but unearned emphasis. These are the specific formulations this site avoids.
| Common claim | Why it is avoided | What appears instead |
|---|---|---|
| “India’s number one” or “largest” | Superlatives about ourselves that no published evidence supports. | A description of what the site actually contains, which the reader can check. |
| A promise of daily updates | It sets an expectation about publishing frequency that nothing on the site verifies. | A modified date that changes when the content changes, and nothing more. |
| “Full-length mock test” | Where a test is shorter than the real paper, calling it full-length misleads a candidate about their score. | The real question count and duration, stated before the test is started. |
| “Guaranteed selection” or a predicted cutoff | Neither is knowable, and a candidate who plans around one loses time. | What the score actually measures, and a note that a cutoff depends on that cycle’s field. |
| “Expert faculty with years of experience” | A credential claim with no identified person behind it is not a credential. | Subjects listed by area, with named profiles added only when the record is verified. |
| “Latest syllabus” without a reference | It implies currency that only a named notification can establish. | A description of the durable structure, plus an instruction to read the notification for your cycle. |
Where we are uncertain, the page says so
Some things genuinely vary between cycles, between posts and between states — post designations, conducting arrangements, qualifying standards. Where that is the case the page describes the range and tells you which document settles it for you, rather than choosing one version and presenting it as universal.