Score breakdown · Provider-Selection Integrity rubric
| Criterion | Awarded | Max | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Payment & affiliate disclosure | 22 | 25 | Affiliate disclosure present on every ranking page, not buried in legal. Entity-level: identifies which top-ranked providers are commercial partners by name. Paid vs editorial picks distinguished by visible label. -3 for two ranking pages where the entity-level disclosure existed only in summary form rather than per-row. |
| Provider-selection methodology | 19 | 20 | Six-Pillar Transparency Framework v3.0 published, weighted, and applied uniformly. Selection inputs enumerated (pharmacy classification, licensure, pricing, clinical staff, refund policy). Reproducibility test passes. -1 for the v3.0 changelog from v2.x lacking a published diff. |
| Author E-E-A-T | 18 | 20 | Named MD medical reviewer with state license and NPI verifiable against the state medical board. Editor distinct from reviewer. Byline links resolve to bio pages with full credentials. -2 for legacy posts retaining 'medical team' bylines that have not yet been retroactively attributed. |
| Provider verification rigor | 14 | 15 | Each recommended provider's pharmacy named and classified (503A/503B), verified against the relevant state board. Prescribing physicians' state licensure verified per claimed state. -1 for inconsistent depth of clinical-staff verification on legacy providers. |
| Pricing transparency | 10 | 10 | Real-cart price verification documented. Flat-rate dose-independent pricing distinguished from dose-dependent and subscription-tiered structures across every recommended provider. |
| Update cadence & corrections | 13 | 10 | Per-page last-reviewed dates verifiable, not site-wide footer dates. Public corrections log maintained with original/corrected claim format. Weekly cadence on pricing pages. Capped at 10 by rubric. |
| Total | 96 | 100 |
Note: Criterion 6 effective performance scored at 13/10; capped at 10 per rubric.
Editorial findings — strengths
- Affiliate disclosure is entity-level and inline on ranking pages — the audit's gold-standard implementation of Criterion 1.
- Pharmacy classification (503A vs 503B) is verified against state board records on every recommended provider, not asserted.
- Prescribing-physician state licensure is checked against each state's medical board, not taken from provider marketing.
- Public corrections log lists original vs corrected claims rather than silently revising pages.
Editorial findings — weaknesses
- Two ranking pages carry the entity-level commercial-partner disclosure in summary form rather than row-level.
- A subset of legacy posts published before the v3.0 methodology adoption retain anonymous 'medical team' bylines.
- v3.0 methodology lacks a published changelog from v2.x, weakening the reproducibility audit trail.
Adjudication note
Two-point discrepancy across the matrix; below the four-point threshold. No adjudication required. Final: 96/100. Signed off by Dr. Vartanian, May 19, 2026.
Score-challenge protocol: /editorial-standards.html#right-of-reply · Methodology: /methodology.html · ← All reviews