Review methodology

Our marketplace coverage is built on one principle: a claim is worth exactly as much as its verification path. “Legit”, “reliable”, and “good” are treated as documentation states, not vibes — which is why we publish no scores and no verdicts, only checkable signals and how to check them.

Every vendor-facing page on this site evaluates the same five signals, explained in depth on the legitimacy page:

• Entity identity — can the operation be named, registered, and located?
• Batch documentation — COAs with methods, matching batches.
• Independent verification — third-party retests, published.
• Payment protections — does the buyer keep recourse?
• Operational track record — domain history, complaint patterns.

When we profile a name, sources are collected in a fixed order, and each source is tiered before anything is written:

• Regulatory and registry records (business filings, warnings, actions).
• Vendor’s own published documentation (COAs, terms, entity details).
• Archives — domain history, operational continuity.
• Platform-moderated community discussion, with account-history checks.
• Commercial “review” sites — read only to document what the marketing layer claims, never as evidence.

When the record for a name is thin, the page says exactly that, and stops. Padding a thin record with borrowed reputation or speculation makes the whole record less usable — for us and for readers. An “unknown” is a real finding in a market where names churn monthly.