Trust
We never present submitted information as verified. A claim starts as exactly that — a claim — and it only earns a stronger label when someone independent has checked it. The rules below are not editorial policy: they are enforced by the platform’s database, so they cannot be bent case-by-case.
The organisation submitted its own information and an admin accepted it for public listing. Nothing has been independently checked yet — and the label says so.
A reviewer has begun checking the claims: documents requested, details queried. Still not verified, and still labelled as unverified.
An accredited verifier has independently confirmed the core claims — identity, licence to operate, and the capabilities listed. Only verifiers and platform admins can grant this status.
The highest tier: verification plus a deeper assessment (typically including a site visit) held to a published standard, with periodic re-checks.
Records can also be suspended (temporarily withdrawn while something is investigated) or rejected. Statuses only ever move along allowed paths — nothing jumps from “listed” to “certified”.
1. Only independent verifiers can verify.
Reaching “verified” or “certified” requires the verifier or admin role — and the database refuses a verifier acting on their own organisation. Independence is enforced in code.
2. Every change is audited.
Each status change writes an append-only audit entry: who acted, what changed, from what to what, and when. The history of a listing cannot be quietly rewritten.
3. Unverified says unverified.
Public listings that have not been checked carry the disclaimer in plain sight. If that costs us a prettier-looking directory, so be it — the label is the product.
No. Verification status can only change through the platform's state machine, every change is written to an immutable audit log with the identity of the person who made it, and a verifier can never verify their own organisation's claims. Payment buys the verification work — never the outcome.
It means the organisation told us about itself and we published that honestly, with a clear label saying nobody has independently checked it yet. We would rather show you an honest 'unverified' than a flattering guess.
Platform-accredited verifiers with the verifier role. The database itself blocks a verifier from verifying any organisation they belong to — the conflict-of-interest rule is enforced in code, not in policy documents.
Yes. Statuses can be suspended or rejected if evidence no longer supports them, and every such change is recorded in the audit trail with who made it and when.
It is append-only: entries record the actor, the before and after state, and the timestamp, and the platform's database rules prevent status changes outside the audited path. We publish our methodology precisely so you can hold us to it.
Verification is how credible providers separate themselves from claims that can’t survive a look. List your organisation to enter the ladder, or talk to us about verification.