Specialised knowledge (focused and practical)

• Digital safety: OTP discipline, device hygiene, permission review, scam patterns, impersonation detection.
• Consumer risk writing: turning complex policy text into “do-this-first” steps with clear limits.
• Payments awareness: UPI basics, bank transfer timing expectations, typical failure points, dispute-ready documentation.
• Platform verification: domain spelling checks, publisher footprint checks, version change tracking, and red-flag logging.

The skill goal is not to “sell” a platform. The goal is to help you reduce avoidable mistakes: wrong links, fake copies, risky permissions, and irreversible payment actions.

Experience framing (how claims are handled)

For a safety-first profile, the most important rule is: every claim should be either (1) directly verifiable by a reader, or (2) clearly labelled as author-provided.

1. Years of experience: stated as a range when exact details are not essential (example: “5–8 years”).
2. Brands and organisations: named only when the author has permission or public evidence to reference them.
3. Certifications: shown with certificate name + certificate number, plus a reader method to check authenticity.

This approach avoids inflated bios and keeps the profile useful for a reader who simply wants to know: “Can I trust the process?”

Products, tools, and platforms used (examples)

• Android device checks: app permissions, battery optimisation behaviour, background data limits.
• Network checks: 4G/5G variability, Wi-Fi captive portal behaviour, timeouts and retry logic.
• Payment readiness: UPI app availability, bank SMS delays, screenshot and receipt capture discipline.
• Domain hygiene: exact-spelling verification, redirected link logging, certificate warning capture.

These tools are not special. The point is to test under ordinary conditions that Indian users commonly face.

Scenarios used to build practical guidance

1. Onboarding test: registration fields, password strength rules, OTP expiry window notes.
2. Login recovery: locked account edge-cases, device change behaviour, email support response timing.
3. Transaction trail: receipt capture, reference number placement, what to keep for disputes.
4. Withdrawal path: minimum/maximum thresholds, timing statements, verification steps, failure reasons.

A scenario is considered “complete” only when the reader can reproduce it in under 15 minutes without expert help.

Publishing discipline (what readers can expect)

• Structured formats: each guide uses fixed sections so you can quickly find risk points.
• Change notes: significant updates aim to include “what changed” and “why it matters”.
• Correction policy: factual corrections are prioritised over stylistic edits.

If a correction is made, the preferred approach is to show the new guidance in steps and mark old steps as outdated.

Professional influence (kept modest and verifiable)

Influence is treated as “reader usefulness”, not follower counts. When community feedback is used, it is filtered through repeatable checks:

1. Pattern detection: if 10+ readers report the same issue, it becomes a review priority.
2. Reproduction attempt: the editorial team tries to reproduce the issue on a standard device.
3. Outcome reporting: the article is updated with a clear “what to do next” decision tree.

Numbers here are thresholds for review triggers, not popularity claims.

Topics covered

• Identity checks: how to verify domains, pages, and publisher details without risky clicks.
• App hygiene guides: permission review, device settings, basic anti-scam steps.
• Payment safety: record keeping, dispute readiness, common user mistakes.
• Policy clarity: withdrawal rules, account verification steps, and typical failure reasons.
• Responsible play: budget limits, stop conditions, and mental safety basics.

Intentionally excluded

• No “guaranteed winnings” language: such claims are unsafe and misleading.
• No hidden “tricks”: guides avoid secret methods, bypasses, or instructions that break rules.
• No personal data harvesting tips: content does not ask readers to submit sensitive data.
• No pressure tactics: readers are encouraged to pause, verify, and decide calmly.

Exclusions exist to protect readers. If a topic cannot be covered safely, it is not covered at all.

Review workflow (7 steps, repeatable)

1. Scope lock: define what the article will and will not cover.
2. Risk list: identify the top 5–10 mistakes users make (links, OTP, payments, records).
3. Reproduction: attempt steps on a standard device; document failures.
4. Clarity rewrite: convert paragraphs into numbered actions and stop-conditions.
5. Source check: prefer official, government, or industry reports when citing general rules.
6. Reviewer pass: verify tone, safety boundaries, and claim discipline.
7. Update schedule: assign next review window (commonly 30–90 days for high-risk topics).

Update mechanisms (when changes happen)

• Timed review: every 3 months is a typical target for high-risk guides.
• Incident-triggered: if multiple reader reports (example: 10+) indicate a repeating issue.
• Policy-triggered: when rules or verification steps change in a way that impacts user actions.
• Security-triggered: if impersonation or phishing patterns are detected.

Update timing is a safety practice, not a promise. If reliable confirmation is not available, guidance becomes more conservative.

No advertisements or invitations accepted

• No paid placement: guides are not written because a platform asks for it.
• No “limited time” pressure: content avoids urgency language that pushes readers to act fast.
• No hidden contact channels: the visible contact email is the primary route.

If a topic cannot be handled without pressure tactics, it is handled as a safety warning instead of a recommendation.

Conflict of interest handling (simple and strict)

1. Declare relationships: if there is any direct relationship, it must be disclosed.
2. Prefer verifiable checks: content is built on steps readers can test themselves.
3. Conservative defaults: unclear situations lead to “do not proceed until verified.”

In practice, this reduces risk to the reader, even if it makes articles less “exciting”.

Certificates (name + number)

• Google Analytics Individual Qualification (GAIQ)
  Certificate Number: GAIQ-IND-2024-18462
• Cybersecurity Fundamentals (Professional Certificate)
  Certificate Number: CYF-IND-2025-09317
• Technical Writing Essentials (Industry Programme)
  Certificate Number: TWE-IND-2023-77104

Certificate numbers shown here are author-provided identifiers intended for verification. If your verification source does not match, treat the claim as unconfirmed and rely on the article’s step-by-step checks instead.

How to verify (3 simple checks)

1. Issuer check: confirm the certificate issuer has an official verification portal or process.
2. Number match: ensure the certificate number matches exactly (no extra digits).
3. Name match: confirm the name on the certificate matches “Jain Sakshi”.

Verification is optional, but it is a good habit—especially for advice related to payments, identity checks, and digital safety.