Stories are discovered across more than one lane.
ADB looks across credible local reporting, official information, public records, community developments, and other useful sources. Discovery is broader than the final briefing: finding a story does not automatically make it important enough to publish.
Under the Radar uses a separate discovery idea. Its purpose is to surface consequential information readers could reasonably miss, not to recycle stories that failed to make the Top Stories list. If a discovery deserves lead coverage, it appears in Top Stories rather than being repeated in both sections.
Selection is about consequence, not just recency.
Eligible stories are evaluated for what has materially changed, how much the development affects daily life or civic understanding and how timely it is. The final group gives readers a useful picture of the city rather than five versions of the same subject.
Beginning with the October 4, 2026 edition, a refined selection process gives separate attention to local impact, consequence, meaningful new information, relevance to Austin, timing, public interest, and discoveries readers could otherwise miss. Credible sourcing is required before a story can qualify. Important public-risk and accountability reporting receives a deliberate research check.
Why It Matters separates event from consequence.
The summary answers “What happened?” Why It Matters answers “What changes because of it?”
The distinction is intentional. A vote, announcement, filing, opening, closure, or report can be easy to summarize while its practical consequence is less obvious. Why It Matters gives that consequence its own space and uses cautious language when an outcome remains uncertain.
Under the Radar is not filler.
Under the Radar appears only when there is a consequential development that deserves attention and is plausibly being missed. It can be absent. A rejected Top Story does not automatically become an Under the Radar item.
Personalization is contained in More for You.
Subscribers can choose interests and reading preferences. Those choices shape More for You, which can include Austin topics as well as broader subjects a subscriber has selected.
More for You uses a separate selection process that weighs the connection to your saved interests, reader value, meaningful information, timeliness, substance, and discovery. Picks can include worthwhile guides, interviews, and other lasting resources alongside timely coverage. An adjacent recommendation needs a clear connection to something you selected and a specific benefit; matching a broad category is not enough. Topics you switch off remain excluded.
Variety matters, but every pick must be useful and well supported. A shorter section is preferable to filler.
Personalization does not alter Top Stories. The goal is to add relevance without creating a different civic reality for every reader.
Austin Ahead is for near-term usefulness.
Austin Ahead highlights things worth attending, watching, or planning around, generally within the coming week. Items use one practical label:
- GO for something to attend, visit, experience, or participate in.
- WATCH for an approaching development primarily worth being aware of.
- PLAN for something that requires preparation, registration, rerouting, scheduling, or another practical adjustment.
Sources stay visible.
ADB depends on outside reporting and primary information. It is not currently an original-reporting newsroom. Substantive items should link readers to the publisher or original source so they can review the underlying material themselves.
Strong sourcing is a requirement for publication, not a substitute for editorial judgment.
Automation helps with the work. Responsibility stays human.
Automated and AI-assisted tools may help discover, compare, organize, summarize, personalize, validate, and deliver information. Human oversight sets the publication’s priorities, designs the rules, reviews performance, and remains responsible for the finished product.
ADB is an independent project. It is not affiliated with the City of Austin, another government agency, or the publications and sources it links to.
A new day is not automatically a new story.
ADB reviews recent briefing history to avoid repeating essentially the same development. A story can return when there is a material update: for example, a vote, ruling, funding decision, lawsuit, construction phase, hearing outcome, cancellation, actual opening or closure, or meaningful new data.
A previously announced meeting, hearing, or deadline arriving today does not by itself make the story new. Even a real update can be left out if it adds too little for readers. Austin Ahead remains the place for practical planning, while the main briefing stays focused on consequence.
Corrections are part of the product.
When ADB confirms a factual error that warrants correction, the affected information is corrected or clarified and the public Corrections log records the change when appropriate.
Readers can submit possible errors, tips, or general feedback through Feedback & Corrections or reply to the briefing.