Platform-reviewed evidence
Site reviews are their own evidence layer.
Where approved site reviews exist, CVC may use them to create platform-reviewed scorecards, written review excerpts, and structured vendor context for shortlist decisions.
Methodology
How CVC thinks about vendor evidence, review layers, and ranking signals.
CVC is intended to separate platform-reviewed evidence, public-source context, and paid visibility. This page explains the principles behind that separation.
Governance pages
Public-source context
External review signals are tracked separately.
Online review summaries, platform references, and public-source signals can add context, but they are not the same thing as a platform-reviewed score.
A vendor profile does not mean endorsement. Profiles may exist before any platform-reviewed score is available.
Where CVC does not yet have enough approved site-review evidence, score surfaces should remain marked as TBC rather than implying unsupported certainty.
Written reviews should be moderated, attributed according to reviewer-visibility rules, and displayed only after approval.
Where scorecards are shown, they should reflect approved site-review data and clearly communicate that they are platform-reviewed rather than scraped public sentiment.
Sponsored placement, subscription, or managed support should be labelled and should not be represented as neutral ranking evidence.
CVC may use structured data, public-source context, and moderation workflows, but key review, takedown, and trust decisions may still involve human judgement.