Our methods

Show how the finding was reached.

A finding is only useful if you can understand what it says, what supports it, and what it leaves unanswered.

This is our proposed research approach. Detailed criteria for the first trade and area would be published before any assessments.

Start with the right business.

A trading name, legal entity, location, and license holder can refer to different things. Before attaching evidence, we would establish which business and part of its operation the evidence concerns.

A shared name would not be enough to combine records. Changes in ownership, location, or operating entity would need to be considered before carrying earlier findings forward.

Check one claim at a time.

Each claim should have its own source, scope, and review date. “This license was active when checked” is a narrower and more useful statement than “This business is verified.”

We propose recording three separate things:

• Where it came from. An official register, business statement, customer account, or another identified source.
• What was checked. Whether the source was retrieved, whether the business matched, and whether other evidence supported or conflicted with the claim.
• Its current limits. Age, expiry, missing information, unresolved disagreement, or restrictions on sharing the evidence.

Ten websites repeating one original source would count as one source, not ten independent confirmations.

Use sources for what they can establish.

An official licensing register can establish the status shown in that register. It cannot establish how well a particular job was performed. A customer’s account can describe their experience, but it is not automatically a finding about every customer or an established fact in a dispute.

A search that finds no complaints in a named source should say exactly that. It should not become “no complaints.” Allegations, responses, and any formal decisions should remain distinct.

Keep freshness specific.

The date we checked a source is different from the period the source covers. A record should preserve both, along with any expiry date and the next review due.

Refresh schedules would depend on how quickly a claim can change and the consequences of relying on it. If a check becomes overdue or its source becomes unavailable, that limit should be visible beside the claim. Rechecking one field should not refresh unrelated fields.

Assess service only when the evidence supports it.

We do not propose turning a few credentials into a universal score. Any future assessment of service quality would need published criteria and evidence about completed work.

That could include the agreed scope, price changes, final invoice, reported outcome, and how a problem was handled, with consent and private information removed where needed. Selected testimonials alone would not establish typical performance.

The assessment should explain how jobs were selected, how many were examined, whose experiences may be missing, and whether the sample supports the conclusion. Evidence quality and business quality should remain separate judgments.

Review conclusions and disagreements.

Software may help collect or compare information. Material adverse conclusions would require human review against the published criteria, with a chance for the business to respond before publication where practical and appropriate.

Conflicting evidence should be considered and recorded. If it cannot be resolved, the finding should preserve that uncertainty. Appeals should go to someone who was not responsible for the original disputed judgment and has no relevant commercial conflict.

Publish the method with its limits.

Criteria would be specific to the trade and jurisdiction. Comparable businesses would be assessed consistently under a named version of those criteria. A method change should explain whether earlier records need another review.

Before launch, we still need to test the collection process, set review intervals, define assessment thresholds, and establish reviewer responsibilities. We would publish those details alongside the first covered area.

The proposed standard, coverage policy, and correction process explain the commitments this method is intended to support.