Score breakdown · Provider-Selection Integrity rubric
| Criterion | Awarded | Max | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Payment & affiliate disclosure | 16 | 25 | Disclosure inline. -9 for entity-level granularity gap on most ranking pages. |
| Provider-selection methodology | 13 | 20 | Methodology page exists. Selection criteria stated. -7 for criteria not numerically weighted; ranking not reproducible. |
| Author E-E-A-T | 11 | 20 | Named author with verifiable PharmD credential. -9 for PharmD attribution on clinical decisions where the rubric specifies MD; editor not distinct from author. |
| Provider verification rigor | 10 | 15 | Some pharmacy classification. -5 for verification depth below median; state board citations inconsistent. |
| Pricing transparency | 9 | 10 | Pricing covered with reasonable depth. -1 for one stale price. |
| Update cadence & corrections | 11 | 10 | Per-page dates present. Capped at 10. |
| Total | 70 | 100 |
Note: Criterion 6 effective performance scored at 11/10; capped at 10.
Editorial findings — strengths
- Named author with externally verifiable credentials (PharmD).
- Methodology page exists and is linked from ranking pages.
- Disclosure is inline rather than buried in a separate legal page.
Editorial findings — weaknesses
- PharmD attribution is used on clinical decisions where the rubric specifies MD; the audit's Criterion 3 requires an MD reviewer on clinical content.
- Selection rubric is narratively stated but not numerically weighted.
- Pharmacy verification is shallow; state board citations are inconsistent across recommended providers.
Adjudication note
Two-point discrepancy on Criterion 3. Below threshold. No adjudication. Final: 70/100. Signed off May 20, 2026.
Score-challenge protocol: /editorial-standards.html#right-of-reply · Methodology: /methodology.html · ← All reviews