How Czech Business Review verifies Czech company, startup, technology and economic research and defines Czech business geography.
Czech Business Review distinguishes companies founded in the Czech Republic from companies merely operating there, and it keeps Prague, Brno, regional and national evidence on the correct geographic level. This matters particularly for technology companies whose ownership, headquarters and engineering presence can move across borders over time.
Preferred sources include the Czech Statistical Office, Czech National Bank, CzechInvest, public registries, company filings and direct company disclosures. Acquisition history and current ownership are treated separately from company origin.
Primary-source hierarchy
Sources are chosen according to the subject and the claim being made. The following source types normally receive priority, with the most specific underlying document preferred over a general summary.
- Czech Statistical Office and Czech National Bank releases
- CzechInvest, ministries, regulators and public company registries
- Company filings, investor material and official company announcements
- University, research and public innovation institutions where relevant to technology coverage
- Reputable secondary sources used with attribution when primary records are incomplete
Core research rules
Czech-founded and Czech-based companies
Founded in, headquartered in, incorporated in and operating in the Czech Republic are separate classifications. A Czech-founded business remains historically Czech-founded after an acquisition, but current ownership is recorded separately.
Startup and funding data
Funding rounds are identified by stage and announcement date. Equity, debt, grants and acquisition values are not combined into a single venture-capital total. Announced rounds are not treated as cash received unless the disclosure supports that conclusion.
Technology-company status
Active, acquired, merged and independent companies are distinguished. Employee and revenue figures retain their reporting year and source. Product claims and customer counts are not converted into market-share claims without independent evidence.
Economic geography
Prague, Brno, municipal, regional and national statistics are not interchangeable. Where a technology cluster extends beyond a city boundary, the article states the geography used for the relevant number.
Dataset and permanent-reference rules
Czech Technology Companies Database
Inclusion is based on a documented Czech founding, headquarters or substantial operating relationship, with the type of connection made explicit. Acquisition history and current status are preserved rather than erased.
Startup and scaleup research
Company lists use stated inclusion criteria and avoid presenting private-company estimates as audited facts. Funding and valuation claims retain their source date.
Review dates, corrections and refreshes
Permanent company and research pages are reviewed when ownership, operating status, funding, company disclosures or official statistics materially change. Historical founding and acquisition events keep their original dates even when the company profile is updated.
Where a material factual error is identified, the correction process follows the Editorial Standards. Research pages are not given a newer date simply to create an appearance of freshness.
Network-wide quality gate
A publication-wide quality gate for research, rankings, explainers and evidence-led reporting. New pages should add verifiable information, structure or analysis that a reader could not obtain by merely restating the same source material.
Add a new fact, comparison or structure
Every authority page should contribute at least one material element beyond a generic summary: an original dataset, a ranked or normalised comparison, a historical series, a project-stage classification, a source reconciliation, a geographic breakdown, or a clearly reasoned synthesis across multiple sources.
Prefer primary evidence
Company filings, regulators, government datasets, official project disclosures, investor materials and other first-party records should establish factual claims wherever practical. Secondary reporting can add context, challenge claims or fill gaps, but should not replace an available primary source without a reason.
Preserve provenance
Numbers must retain their observation date, source and qualification. Announced investment is not treated as completed spending, planned capacity is not operating capacity, and group-wide figures are not silently assigned to one site, country or subsidiary.
Make definitions explicit
Rankings, trackers and databases must explain what is included, what is excluded and how ambiguous categories are handled. Terms such as largest, capacity, investment, employer, headquarters, analyst consensus and project stage should be operationally defined.
Show uncertainty instead of inventing precision
Missing values remain missing unless a defensible calculation is explicitly labelled. Estimates, ranges and inferred values must be distinguished from disclosed figures. Conflicting sources should be surfaced rather than averaged into false certainty.
Keep a time dimension
Materially changing subjects should retain review dates, historical observations or event histories so readers and machines can distinguish a current state from a previous disclosure.
Connect the evidence graph
High-value pages should link to the relevant authority hub, supporting analysis, persistent entities, methodology and primary-source evidence. New pages should strengthen an existing topic graph rather than exist as isolated search landings.
Do not publish thin variants
A new page should not exist solely because a keyword has a slightly different wording. Overlapping intent should be consolidated into the strongest canonical resource unless the new page has a genuinely different dataset, audience task, geography, time frame or analytical question.
Publication gate before a new authority URL is created
- What verifiable information or structure does this page add that is not already present elsewhere in the archive?
- Can the important quantitative claims be traced to a source and observation date?
- Are scope, definitions and exclusions clear enough for another analyst to reproduce the classification?
- Does the page distinguish disclosed facts from estimates, interpretation and commentary?
- Does the page belong to an existing authority cluster and link back into that cluster?
- Would merging this material into an existing canonical page produce a better resource than publishing a separate URL?
Default decision: if a proposed page cannot clear these questions, the preferred action is to strengthen, update or consolidate an existing canonical resource instead of publishing another thin URL.