Score breakdown · Provider-Selection Integrity rubric
| Criterion | Awarded | Max | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Payment & affiliate disclosure | 20 | 25 | Disclosure inline. -5 for entity-level identification gaps on some ranking pages. |
| Provider-selection methodology | 17 | 20 | Six-Pillar framework applied. -3 for the methodology page being inherited rather than locally authored. |
| Author E-E-A-T | 17 | 20 | Named MD reviewer signs off. -3 for sparse byline attribution: many review pages attributed to 'editorial' rather than a named author. |
| Provider verification rigor | 13 | 15 | Pharmacy verified. Licensure verified. -2 for clinical-staff verification depth varying by provider. |
| Pricing transparency | 9 | 10 | Pricing verified. Dose-structure distinguished. -1 for one stale price during the audit window. |
| Update cadence & corrections | 9 | 10 | Per-page review dates present. -1 for corrections log shared with parent network rather than site-specific. |
| Total | 85 | 100 |
Editorial findings — strengths
- Six-Pillar framework is applied uniformly across every recommended provider page; reproducibility test passes.
- Pharmacy classification and physician licensure verification are present on every recommended provider.
- Per-page last-reviewed dates are verifiable, not site-wide footer timestamps.
Editorial findings — weaknesses
- Sparse byline attribution on review pages — many are attributed to 'editorial' rather than a named MD.
- Methodology page is inherited from the parent network rather than authored locally.
- Corrections log is shared with the parent network rather than site-specific.
Adjudication note
Two-point discrepancy. Below threshold. No adjudication. Final: 85/100. Signed off May 19, 2026.
Score-challenge protocol: /editorial-standards.html#right-of-reply · Methodology: /methodology.html · ← All reviews