Methodology

How FDCIC.com Rates and Reviews

A transparent rubric, evidence scale, and editorial workflow. No payment can improve a rating. AI may assist research, but humans approve all findings.

TransparentHuman-approved

Rating Rubric

Each rated entity receives a Market Integrity Score from 0 to 100, or "Not Enough Evidence to Score," based on the weighted criteria below. Category-specific criteria and weights may apply.

0115%

Regulatory accuracy and claim discipline

Does the entity distinguish rule requirements from optional services and marketing claims?

0215%

Technical reproducibility and model governance

Can calculations be reproduced against the official FD-CIC with version control?

0310%

Evidence and substantiation

Are claims supported by public documentation, contracts, or operational evidence?

0415%

Farmer economics and contractual protection

Are payment terms, obligations, and liability clearly defined and fair to farmers?

0515%

Data rights, confidentiality, consent, and portability

Does the entity disclose data use, provide export and correction rights, and limit secondary use?

0615%

Audit trail, traceability, and control design

Are records, calculations, and chain-of-custody controls sufficient for an audit?

0710%

Independence and conflict management

Are consulting, verification, software, and sales relationships disclosed and managed?

085%

Commercial maturity and demonstrated execution

Is there operational evidence that the system works, not just a plan or announcement?

Evidence Maturity Scale

Marketing claim only

Only public marketing or press materials reviewed.

Public documentation reviewed

Website, documentation, and public statements reviewed.

Provider questionnaire completed

Structured questionnaire returned and reviewed.

Contract or technical documentation reviewed

Contracts, methodology, or technical specs reviewed.

Operational evidence reviewed

Live system, sample records, or test results reviewed.

Independently validated

FDCIC.com or a qualified third party has independently tested the claim.

Concern Levels

No Material Concern Identified

No significant issues found based on available evidence.

Advisory

Minor issues or gaps that do not rise to material concern.

Material Evidence Gap

Important evidence is missing or incomplete.

Material Concern

Documented issue that could harm farmers or market participants.

Critical Concern

Official finding or strong corroborated evidence. Never generated automatically.

Editorial Workflow

01. Source Collected02. Extracted03. Claim Classified04. Rule Cross-Checked05. Evidence Graded06. Drafted07. Technical Review08. Legal or Risk Review09. Company Response Requested10. Final Review11. Published12. Monitoring or Update Required13. Corrected or Superseded

AI Research Policy

AI may

· Monitor sources and extract claims
· Categorize companies and draft summaries
· Identify rule-claim conflicts
· Generate review questions
· Compare public disclosures

AI may not

· Assign final ratings
· Accuse a company or person of fraud
· Publish a confidential allegation
· Conclude a verifier lacks independence
· State a tax credit is invalid
· Publish without human approval