Methodology
How Vetted Authority evaluates
Vetted Authority earns trust through transparent evaluation, not unsupported rankings or affiliate-driven recommendations. This page explains the rules every review and comparison on this site has to follow.
What determines what we evaluate
- We prioritize categories where a wrong choice is costly — in money, time, or switching effort.
- A product is added to the evaluation queue based on real user demand for a decision, not on advertising spend or outreach.
- There is no pay-for-placement. A company cannot buy inclusion, a better score, or a more favorable comparison result.
- We would rather cover fewer products with real evidence than many products with none.
Kinds of claims
Every statement in an evaluation is one of these seven kinds. We never let one masquerade as another — a vendor's claim is labeled as a claim, not presented as a verified fact.
- 01
- Verified fact
- Confirmed directly against the product or a primary source.
- 02
- First-party claim
- Stated by the maker, not yet independently confirmed.
- 03
- Independent evidence
- Sourced from parties with no commercial stake in the outcome.
- 04
- Observed behavior
- What the product actually does under real use.
- 05
- User/community sentiment
- Aggregated experience from people who use the product.
- 06
- Editorial judgment
- Our assessment, clearly separated from the evidence itself.
- 07
- Uncertainty
- What isn't known yet, stated rather than papered over.
Scoring
- Scores are never invented — every score maps to named criteria, a defined weight, and a defined 0-10 scale.
- Each criterion score carries the evidence it's based on and a confidence level, not just a number.
- Conflicting evidence is surfaced in the review, not silently averaged into a single figure.
- Scoring methodology is versioned and inspectable, not a black box.
Confidence
Every score and claim carries a confidence level. Confidence is not a hedge — it tells you how much weight the evidence can actually bear.
- High confidence
- Backed by verified fact or multiple independent sources.
- Medium confidence
- Backed by a single credible source or partial verification.
- Low confidence
- Limited evidence — treat as a lead, not a conclusion.
Conflicting evidence
When sources disagree — a vendor claim contradicted by user reports, or independent evidence pointing a different direction than observed behavior — we surface the conflict directly in the evaluation. We do not silently average opposing evidence into a single reassuring number.
Freshness & reverification
- Products, prices, features, policies, and ownership change — every evaluation carries a last-verified date.
- Evaluations define when they are next due for re-verification rather than going stale silently.
Commercial independence & disclosure
- Affiliate relationships never determine inclusion, exclusion, score, winner, or the wording of weaknesses.
- Commercial relationships are disclosed on every review and comparison, whether or not one exists.
- A comparison never manufactures a universal winner to satisfy a commercial angle.
See it applied
The review and comparison sections currently contain one demonstration entry each, built from a fictional product, so you can see this methodology applied to a full evaluation before any real evaluations are published.