Research log · Current to 2026-08-31
What changed, when, and why.
Scores move only when the evidence moves. Every material change is recorded here so a reader can see how a profile reached its current state — including the changes that were not flattering to us.
-
Rubric v1.1 applied to all ten platforms
Added a third-party assurance evidence tier and a company-transparency dimension, then rescored every platform against the revised 100-point rubric. Assurance evidence is now graded by strength — verified attestation, trust-center artifact, public self-assessment, vendor-documented controls, or none located — rather than treated as a single yes/no. Because most platforms in this group publish security claims without independent attestation, security and exit scores moved down across the board. The change reflects a stricter evidence standard, not new findings about any vendor.
-
Insufficient-evidence grade introduced
Platforms whose evidence confidence is Low now display an IE stamp instead of a letter grade. A company with little public record has not earned a poor grade; it has not been documented. Showing those two states identically was misleading, and this corrects it. Vivid Trades is currently the only affected profile.
-
Menaia review denominator corrected
The G2 seller profile displayed 4.7/5 from three reviews, all marked organic and validated, with two also marked verified current user. The profile now states the denominator alongside the rating and keeps a small-sample caveat. Three reviews cannot support a claim about broad market experience in either direction.
-
Initial research pass published
Ten field-service platforms documented from public sources: vendor terms and help material, company registry filings, security and trust pages, and independent review platforms with counts recorded. 10 profiles published with full source trails.
Spotted something this log should contain? Request a correction ↗