How we research, score and publish

• • Vendors cannot purchase verdicts, scores or rankings.
• • Commercial and editorial functions are separated.
• • Sponsor status is not an input into any scoring model.
• • Commissioned buyer reports carry a visible sponsor disclosure and use the same methodology as unsponsored reports.

1. 1. Define the buyer question.
2. 2. Define the relevant market.
3. 3. Establish inclusion criteria.
4. 4. Collect evidence from published sources and hands-on testing.
5. 5. Verify material facts against primary documentation.
6. 6. Score against published criteria.
7. 7. Apply buyer-context weights (size, industry, use case).
8. 8. Conduct editorial review.
9. 9. Invite vendors to correct factual mistakes.
10. 10. Publish with sources and public change history.

Sources are weighted in this order:

1. 1. Official pricing and product documentation
2. 2. Security, compliance and regulatory documentation
3. 3. Direct product testing by a ChooseOS analyst
4. 4. Verified customer evidence (case studies, reference calls, review corpora)
5. 5. Independent third-party research
6. 6. Vendor-supplied evidence
7. 7. Editorial inference

Every claim is labelled as a fact, estimate, inference or vendor claim so the reader can weigh it appropriately.

• • Anyone may report a factual error.
• • Evidence is required; assertions without evidence do not enter the queue.
• • Vendors receive no preferential factual standard.
• • Material corrections appear in the page's public change history.
• • Editorial disagreement is not treated as a factual correction.

Vendors may claim their profile, verify facts, publish an official perspective on comparisons, add product videos and CTAs, and commission independent buyer reports on markets they operate in. They cannot select the competitor set, criteria, weights, scores, verdicts or rankings.