Every article on The Wealth Mirror is written by one person, and this page sets out how.
Who writes here
All content is written by Sofia Harchich, a Trading Psychologist and Behavioural Finance Writer holding an MSc in Psychology, specialising in work psychology. There are no guest contributors, no ghostwriters and no syndicated content. Where an article draws on a framework developed independently for this work, it is described as such.
Scope of practice
The Wealth Mirror publishes psychoeducational material about behaviour under financial risk. It is written for people who are otherwise functioning and who want to understand and change specific patterns in their own decision-making.
It is not clinical practice. Nothing published here constitutes psychological assessment, diagnosis or treatment, and no article is a substitute for care from a licensed professional.
Four areas sit explicitly outside this scope and are referred out rather than addressed:
- Active trauma requiring clinical containment
- Clinical-level depression, anxiety disorder or related conditions
- Compulsive behaviour that is affecting finances beyond what can be absorbed, relationships, sleep or work
- Any situation in which a reader is at risk of harm
Articles touching adjacent territory — financial anxiety, compulsive trading — carry that boundary in the text rather than only here, and name where the appropriate support sits.
The sourcing standard
Claims are matched to the strength of their evidence. Articles that assess research state, for each claim, how well it is supported — strongly, moderately, weakly, or not at all. Where a finding is contested or has failed replication, that is stated rather than omitted.
Outbound links go to primary or reference sources. Where an article cites a concept, it links to a reference source or to the originating work rather than to another blog. Links are editorial and are never paid, exchanged or requested.
Observations from behavioural records are labelled as observations. Some material here describes patterns that appear consistently in behavioural data without being the subject of formal published research. These are marked as observations rather than presented as findings, and the distinction is made in the text.
Illustrative material is labelled illustrative. Several articles reconstruct a session, a month or a decision chain to show the shape a pattern takes. These are worked examples, constructed to be instructive; they are not case files, they do not describe identifiable individuals, and every one says so where it appears.
Numbers are calculated, not asserted. Where an article states a figure — the expected length of a losing run at a given win rate, for example — it was computed rather than borrowed, and the method is described well enough to be reproduced.
What is not published here
No sponsored content. No article, mention or link on this site has been paid for.
No affiliate links. See the disclosure page for the full position.
No performance claims. Nothing here promises returns, and no article suggests that psychological work produces profit. The material addresses the alignment between decisions and a plan, which is a different claim.
No financial advice. This site does not recommend instruments, strategies, positions or platforms, and nothing on it should be read as a recommendation to buy or sell anything.
No AI-written articles published unreviewed. Drafting tools are used in the production process, as they are in most publishing. Every article is directed, edited and verified by the author, and the ideas, frameworks and judgements are hers.
House style
Articles use British spelling. Structural conventions — one framework reference per section, a stated threshold or protocol the reader can act on, and at least one place where standard advice is contradicted with a reason — are applied consistently, and exist to make the material usable rather than merely readable.
Corrections
Errors are corrected rather than quietly removed. Where a correction changes the substance of an article, a dated note is added at the foot of the page saying what changed. Where a claim turns out to rest on research that has since been undermined, the claim is revised and the reason stated.
If you have found an error, get in touch. Corrections are made regardless of who raises them.
Review and updating
Articles are revisited when the underlying evidence changes, when a framework here develops, or when a reader identifies a problem. Substantive revisions are noted on the page.
Last reviewed: September 2026.