Who publishes the guides?
Quartz develops and supports Tuck. Tuck feature, permission, update-channel and compatibility statements are checked against the current app behavior, signed release artifacts, public repository, release notes, terms and privacy policy. We do not present Quartz as an independent reviewer of its own product.
Which sources are used for competitors?
Competitor claims should come from the vendor's current official website, documentation, public source repository or marketplace listing. Community posts can identify questions worth answering, but they are not treated as authoritative evidence for price, privacy, ownership, support or compatibility.
- Feature claims are linked to the first-party page that supports them.
- Prices are either linked to checkout or omitted when they cannot be verified reliably.
- Old reviews are not copied into structured data or presented as current ratings.
- A roadmap item is described as a roadmap item, not as a shipped feature.
- Comparisons state important Tuck limitations instead of implying feature parity.
What is tested directly?
Quartz can verify Tuck's own installation, permission prompts, Push Mode, Shelf Mode, per-icon behavior, stable and Preview update channels, and published downloads. A comparison page does not claim direct testing of a competitor unless that test and its environment are explicitly documented on the page.
How are Stable and Preview releases separated?
Stable channel
Tuck 1.0.29 build 33 is the current Stable release for macOS 14–26. It uses the normal signed Sparkle feed and remains the default download.
Preview channel
Tuck 1.0.27 build 30 Compatibility Preview 3 is only for macOS 27 Golden Gate Beta. It uses a separate signed Preview feed and keeps beta-specific behavior out of Stable.
Preview 3 is not described as the latest Stable version. Historical Preview 2 release notes remain available as history, while current landing pages point macOS 27 testers to Preview 3.
When is a page marked updated?
The visible update date changes only after a material review or revision, such as a source recheck, version change, corrected comparison, new test boundary or substantial answer rewrite. Mechanical formatting changes alone should not be used to create a false freshness signal. Visible dates and Article JSON-LD dates must agree.
How can readers request a correction?
Email [email protected] with the page URL, the sentence in question and a primary source that supports the correction. We review factual corrections against current evidence and update the page, source note and modified date when warranted.
What is the commercial boundary?
Tuck pages can link to the free download and paid Pro checkout. Editorial comparisons should not invent urgency, rankings, testimonials, aggregate ratings or unsupported claims about another product. A useful guide should help a reader decide not to choose Tuck when a different workflow is the better fit.