Review methodology

Evidence requirements

Every factual claim in a review must be traceable to one of:

• A public regulatory register entry, quoted with the register and the entity name as listed.
• The provider's own published documentation, quoted and dated.
• A test we performed and can describe, including its date, scope and limits.

Verification states

Each material claim is reported as verified, unverified, or not confirmable. 'Unverified' means we could not corroborate it at the time of writing; it is not an accusation. 'Not confirmable' means no public evidence exists either way. We do not upgrade a claim's status because a provider asserts it.

What reviews deliberately exclude

• Profitability claims, income projections and 'expected returns'.
• Comparative superlatives such as 'best' or 'most trusted' that cannot be evidenced.
• Bonus, rebate or incentive promotion.
• Any statement that a provider is safe, guaranteed or risk-free.

Disclosure

Where a commercial relationship exists with a reviewed provider, it is disclosed on the review itself, above the assessment. Outbound commercial links are marked and carry rel="nofollow sponsored".

Withdrawn legacy reviews

The historical archive contained promotional broker reviews that did not meet this standard: unsupported safety and profitability claims, no verifiable regulatory sourcing, and no disclosure. Those items have been withdrawn from all feeds, search and indexing, and are retained only in a labelled quarantine record so the publication's history remains transparent. They should not be relied on for any decision.