Why there are no scores yet

A numerical score communicates precision. It tells a buyer that the difference between 4.2 and 4.4 is meaningful, which requires a scoring method with published category weights, a defined evidence standard for each criterion, a consistent review basis, and a process for keeping it current.

We do not have that yet. Publishing a number without it would be a fabrication of confidence, and a buyer acting on a false ranking is worse served than one reading a well-evidenced narrative. We will publish the method, the weights and the evidence standards before we publish a single score.

The research procedure

  1. Define the buyer question. A provider is researched in relation to a real decision, not in the abstract.
  2. Establish the business model. Is this a content producer, a platform, a content library, a consultancy, a production studio or a hybrid? This is the first fact, because it determines what a buyer is actually buying.
  3. Collect public factual information from official vendor documentation first, then public pricing and service descriptions, then verifiable case studies, then public procurement records and credible third-party evidence.
  4. Record every source with its URL, retrieval date and the specific claim it supports.
  5. Extract structured fields into services, locations, formats, technology and coverage.
  6. Flag what is missing rather than filling it with a plausible estimate.
  7. Identify commercial relationships before publication, not after.
  8. Check for name-and-reality mismatches and similar entities, and exclude rather than substitute where a provider cannot be confirmed.
  9. Human editorial review of every claim, the disclosure and the language used.

Evidence hierarchy

  1. Official vendor documentation for claims about the vendor's own services.
  2. Public pricing and service descriptions.
  3. Verifiable case studies with clear attribution.
  4. Public procurement records and credible third-party evidence.
  5. Direct research and interviews, when actually conducted.

Vendor marketing claims are recorded as vendor claims. We do not present them as independently verified performance results, and we say plainly when the evidence for a claim is self-reported.

What we record when information is missing

A field with no verifiable public source is marked as not published or left blank. It is never inferred from sector convention, from a competitor's profile, or from what would be reasonable to assume. This is why several profiles in the directory have empty language or industry lists. A blank field is more useful than a plausible guess, because a guess is acted upon.

How reviews are written

Each review covers what the provider offers, who it suits, who may need a different type of provider, relevant capabilities, evidence supporting key claims, questions to ask, limitations and uncertainties, comparison with alternatives, the basis and date of the assessment, and any commercial relationship.

We do not describe reviews as independent when the governance and operating process would not support that description. Where the provider is our sponsor, we publish a transparency note rather than a review.

Review dates and updates

Every record carries a last-reviewed date, and that date refers to the evidence, not to the relationship. We prioritise rechecking pricing, service availability, geographic coverage, ownership and leadership changes where relevant, and material service changes. A review is not labelled updated unless a meaningful review has actually taken place.

When a scoring method will be introduced

A published methodology with defined criteria, published category weights, a stated evidence standard per criterion, a consistent review basis, and a maintenance process. It will be published before any score appears on the site, and it will apply to every provider in the directory on the same basis, including our sponsor.