How we work.

Every essay published on this site carries a named author, and every claim is anchored to either a specific engagement on our case file list or a specific public source. We do not publish trend pieces, vendor checklists, or composite advice that would survive equally well at a different firm. If a sentence cannot point to either a piece of work we did or a published source we trust, it does not ship.

Drafts are reviewed by at least one partner who did not author the piece before publication. Where an essay discusses an industry or technique that touches an active client engagement, the author flags the overlap and we route the draft through an additional confidentiality check before posting.

Case studies on this site describe engagements at the level of industry, geography, scale, and method; client names are disclosed only where the client has explicitly granted permission, where the engagement was already on the public record before we wrote about it, or where the client has authored a quoted testimonial that names themselves. Everything else stays anonymized; we will tighten an anonym further at a client’s request without explanation.

We do not disclose active client relationships outside of NDA-covered settings. When a prospective client asks whether we are engaged with a competitor of theirs, we will say yes or no under mutual NDA before scoping further work.

We will not take an engagement that puts us in direct competition with an active client without explicit cross-disclosure to both parties. If we are writing on this site about a vendor, framework, or methodology where we have a relevant commercial interest, the essay discloses the relationship in the body text rather than in a footnote. We do not accept vendor sponsorships, syndicated placements, or paid bylines, and we do not run advertising on this site.

Partner-level conflicts (board seats, advisor roles, equity holdings) are tracked internally and disclosed to relevant clients during scoping. We will not take a new engagement that requires a partner to make a recommendation against a position they hold without first declining the position.

We are an AI advisory firm; pretending we do not use AI tools in our own work would be both inaccurate and faintly ridiculous. Inside client engagements, AI tools assist with research, code generation, draft documentation, and analysis; every artifact that leaves our hands is reviewed by the accountable partner before delivery. We do not deliver AI-generated work as our own thinking.

On this site, AI tools have been used to draft early versions of case studies, landing pages, and editorial essays. Every published piece is reviewed and signed by a named human author who is accountable for the claims, the voice, and the substance. The voice you read on this site is the voice of the named author; the tools used to draft a first pass do not change who is responsible for it.

When we get something wrong, we fix it publicly. Corrections to a published essay appear at the bottom of the affected page, dated, with the substantive change called out. Material corrections (an inaccurate claim, a misattributed quote, a changed conclusion) are also linked from the corrections record below. We do not silently edit substance after publication; copy-editing fixes (typos, broken links) are made in place without notation.

No published corrections yet. This section will populate as they accumulate; an empty list is not a claim of perfection, only an artifact of how recently this site shipped.

If you have spotted an error, a conflict of interest we should disclose, or a misattribution, write directly to info@fulkersonadvisors.com with “Editorial” in the subject line. We aim to respond within two business days. Substantive flags that do not arrive through this channel may still reach us, but we cannot guarantee they reach the partner accountable for the published claim.