Neutrality Charter · non-negotiable
Five constraints written into the site and into the code
This is not a values statement; it is how the product runs. Articles I and V are already code: the ranking function has no commission field, and the publishing pipeline has a banned-word gate that blocks deployment on any hit.
- Ranking and recommendation algorithms never include a commission variableChannels with and without affiliate programmes are indexed and displayed identically. Any affiliate placement is clearly labelled "Ad" per the Internet Advertising Measures.
- No paid certificationAny commissioned test charges an execution fee only; results are never branded "independent certification".
- No funds of any kind from measured channelsAds, sponsorship and affiliate fees may never appear on quality-measurement pages.
- Revenue sources published quarterlyCorrections log and methodology versions are public permanently.
- Evidence before conclusionsAny number in the presentation layer must trace back to a raw snapshot; if it can't, it isn't shown. This is an assertion at the database layer, not a convention.
Wording Charter
We may write
- "This endpoint's output distribution is statistically inconsistent with the reference endpoint (confidence 92%, n=1,240, 2026-08 window)"
- "This channel's effective price for the model is 7.5% of the lowest public channel price, mathematically unsustainable with no subsidy assumed"
- "This measurement failed to reproduce last month's conclusion; cause under investigation"
We never write
- "busted", "fake model", "wrapper", "scam", "dumbed down"
- Any quality conclusion without sample size and time window
- Any form of "recommended list". We give fact sheets; the judgement stays with you
Every quality conclusion must carry sample size, time window and confidence; missing any one, the pipeline blocks it. Named publications get a 72-hour advance notice and appeal window; the same conclusion must reproduce in two independent time windows.