Ownership & funding

Know who is behind the record.

Readers should know who can influence the work, who benefits from it, and how commercial interests are handled.

Who is behind Standard Local

Standard Local is a project from Cheers. It is in development. These pages describe proposed commitments; they do not establish that an independent review organization or oversight body is already operating.

Before publishing assessments, we propose naming the legal operator, people responsible for the methods and final decisions, and any ownership or funding relationships that could materially affect the work. A general statement of independence would not replace those disclosures.

Payment should not affect a finding.

The proposed rule is simple: a business could not pay for a favorable assessment, a stronger claim, preferential recommendation, or removal of an accurate finding. The same criteria would apply to paying and nonpaying businesses, including clients of Cheers.

Businesses should be able to correct an error and provide relevant evidence without buying anything. Essential findings, their sources, and their qualifications should remain available to the public.

Separate commercial work from assessment.

People responsible for sales or client relationships should not be able to override an assessment. A reviewer with a relevant commercial or personal conflict should disclose it and step aside from the decision.

A material relationship should also be disclosed on the affected record. Appeals would need a reviewer who did not make the original disputed judgment and has no relevant conflict. These responsibilities and decision rights must be established before assessments begin.

Explain how the project is funded.

A final revenue model has not been announced. Possible paid services include monitoring, workflow tools, or bulk access to data. Any such service would have to support the same public record and leave assessment outcomes unchanged.

Before offering paid services or publishing assessments, we propose disclosing revenue categories, material funders or sponsors, relevant affiliations, and how those relationships are governed. Changes in ownership or funding that affect the work should have a dated public explanation.

Make the separation testable.

A promise about fairness is not enough. Published criteria, consistent treatment of nonpaying businesses, visible commercial disclosures, and a correction history would give readers ways to examine the work.

We would also need to report failures of these rules and what changed in response. Any future external review should name its scope, reviewer, funding, and findings. No external audit or certification is claimed by these draft pages.

Read the proposed standard and correction and appeal process.