01
Reviewer eligibility
Reviewers publish their real public name, relevant expertise, conflict disclosure, and an operator-checked GitHub, LinkedIn, or professional website. Location does not determine eligibility.
02
Required structure
A review records what was tested, device/browser/operating context, what worked, the most important friction or uncertainty, one prioritised action, focus area, relevant experience, relationship disclosure, and optional evidence screenshot.
03
Moderation
Moderation checks relevance, specificity, disclosure, safety, privacy, and whether the review appears grounded in testing. It does not require a favourable opinion. Rejected, abandoned, duplicate, self, or undisclosed-conflict reviews earn no credit.
04
Limits
Reviews are not exhaustive quality, accessibility, performance, legal, medical, financial, privacy, or security audits. A review may miss defects. Two published reviews support the current “Reviewed by peers” state only until a material revision is published.