Methodology
Each listing is a structured review backed by source evidence. We do not publish full HTML dumps. We store source links, extracted facts, short quotes, and timestamps.
Directory inclusion policy
- As a rule, we do not list firms with an overall fail outcome. We avoid amplifying failed firms in search engines.
- Limited exception: we may include a firm that is clearly a legitimate, well-known operator (not a scam) when its model appears materially unhelpful for users and public context is still valuable.
- Firms marked risk are monitored closely and may move toward reduced visibility or removal if the risk profile worsens.
How reviews are run
- 1. Screen for immediate scam red flags (kill-switch).
- 2. Verify legal entity identity in official registries.
- 3. Verify regulatory or professional claims where relevant.
- 4. Run clone-defense checks by comparing independent contact records to website claims.
- 5. Verify address consistency using registry plus map/geocoder checks.
- 6. Record live-call findings when a human call occurs (otherwise marked not done).
- 7. Review domain age and web history.
- 8. Review external mentions, complaints, and warnings.
Status model
- Check statuses: pass, risk, fail, or not_done.
- not_done means verification was blocked or incomplete, not that risk was proven.
- risk means verification completed and credible adverse signals were found.
- overall status: fail (kill-switch failure), risk (important verification still uncertain or adverse), or provisional pass (sufficient checks completed without material issues).
Evidence standard
- A completed check (pass/risk/fail) must include source evidence and extracted support.
- Conclusions are only assigned when evidence is present; otherwise checks remain not_done.
- Reviews are schema-validated and linted before publication.
Important limit
A listing is an evidence-based legitimacy review, not a guarantee of outcomes or legal responsibility for third parties.