This page describes how ICAS conducts evaluations, how independence from the platforms we review is maintained, how affiliate relationships are handled and disclosed, and how errors and updates are managed.
ICAS evaluations are conducted independently of the platforms being reviewed. Platforms do not commission, fund, approve, or preview their evaluations. A platform's advertising spend, affiliate program participation, or commercial relationship with any party associated with ICAS has no bearing on its score. Scores are determined solely by the published rubric, applied consistently.
ICAS does not accept payment from platforms in exchange for reviews, higher scores, favorable framing, or expedited scheduling. Any platform that contacts ICAS to request a paid evaluation or a removal of a published score is informed that no such arrangement exists and the request is not acted upon.
This independence is the foundation of ICAS's value. A rating from an organization that can be influenced by its subjects is not useful to the consumers and professionals ICAS is designed to serve.
ICAS evaluations are research-based. They are not pay-to-play arrangements, and they are not contingent on platform cooperation. The following describes the standard evaluation process from initial selection through publication.
Platforms are selected for evaluation based on search visibility, user inquiry volume, complaint data signals, and the general prevalence of a platform in online discussions of cognitive assessment. ICAS does not charge platforms a submission fee to be considered for review. Platform operators may contact ICAS to request evaluation, but such requests are subject to the same selection criteria and scheduling constraints as any other platform.
Before scoring begins, the evaluator gathers source material for each criterion. This includes:
All source material is documented with the date of retrieval. Where a platform's publicly stated policies conflict with user-reported experience, both the stated policy and the reported pattern are reflected in the relevant criterion score.
The evaluator applies the six-criterion weighted rubric described in full on the Methodology page. Each sub-criterion is scored independently before any criterion-level score is calculated. Evaluators are required to document the evidence basis for each sub-criterion score in internal review notes. Scores are not adjusted after the fact to achieve a desired overall outcome.
Before a score is published, the evaluation is reviewed by a second evaluator who examines the scoring notes against the source material. The internal reviewer may request clarification, flag inconsistencies, or propose corrections to individual sub-criterion scores. Where the initial evaluator and reviewer disagree on a score, the disagreement is resolved by discussion. If disagreement cannot be resolved, the lower of the two proposed sub-criterion scores is applied as a conservative default.
The internal review process is designed to catch errors in source interpretation and to ensure the rubric has been applied consistently across platforms. It is not a mechanism for modifying scores in response to platform feedback.
Published evaluations include the overall score, all six criterion-level scores, the evaluation date, and a written summary describing the basis for the score. The summary identifies specific strengths and weaknesses in plain language. ICAS does not publish scores without a written summary, because a number without context is not useful to readers.
Platforms are not notified in advance of publication. Platforms may contact ICAS after publication to dispute factual inaccuracies in the written summary or scoring notes, in accordance with the correction policy described below.
Any evaluator or reviewer who has a current or recent financial relationship with a platform under evaluation is excluded from that evaluation. Financial relationships include employment, consulting, advisory roles, ownership stakes, and affiliate compensation arrangements that generate meaningful income from the platform.
An evaluator who identifies a potential conflict of interest at any point during the evaluation process is required to disclose it and stand down from that specific review. A replacement evaluator is assigned. The existence of the potential conflict and the reassignment are documented in internal records.
ICAS does not evaluate platforms with which ICAS itself has a current advertising or sponsorship relationship. If such a relationship is established after a platform has been evaluated, ICAS will disclose the relationship on the relevant evaluation page and schedule an off-cycle re-evaluation to be conducted by an evaluator with no financial connection to the platform.
Individuals involved in platform operations, marketing, or investment who contact ICAS to discuss a platform's evaluation are informed that commercial discussions and editorial discussions are handled separately. Commercial conversations do not result in score changes.
Some links on ICAS platform review pages and elsewhere on this site may contain affiliate tracking parameters. When a user follows an affiliate link and subsequently purchases a product or service, ICAS may receive a commission from the platform at no additional cost to the user.
The following principles govern ICAS's use of affiliate relationships:
If you have questions about a specific affiliate relationship or wish to verify whether a given link is affiliate-tracked, contact us via the Contact page.
Platform evaluations are updated on a rolling 18-month schedule. When an update is published, the evaluation date is updated and material changes from the previous score are noted in the written summary. Score history is retained internally. If a platform's score changes significantly between evaluations, the direction and approximate magnitude of the change are noted on the review page.
ICAS is committed to correcting factual errors when they are identified. A factual error is a misstatement of verifiable information - for example, describing a pricing structure that does not match the platform's published pricing page, or attributing a data retention period that differs from what the privacy policy states.
Factual correction requests may be submitted by anyone, including platform operators. A correction request must identify the specific statement claimed to be in error and provide a verifiable source for the correct information. Requests that amount to disagreement with a score rather than identification of a factual error are not treated as correction requests.
When a factual error is confirmed, the affected text is corrected and a brief note is appended to the evaluation page indicating the nature and date of the correction. The score may or may not change as a result of a factual correction, depending on whether the error affected a scored sub-criterion.
When a platform materially changes a policy that is relevant to its score - such as its pricing structure, cancellation process, or privacy policy - ICAS may update the relevant criterion score outside of the standard 18-month review cycle. Minor clarifications to wording that do not alter the substance of a policy do not trigger a score update.
Platform operators who wish to notify ICAS of a material policy change may do so via the Contact page. Notifications are reviewed and may result in an expedited re-evaluation if the change is confirmed and is material to one or more scored criteria.
Platform operators who believe their product has materially improved since the most recent ICAS evaluation may submit a re-evaluation request. The request should describe the specific changes made and, where possible, provide documentation (updated policies, published studies, third-party audits) that supports the claim of improvement.
Re-evaluation requests are reviewed and acknowledged. ICAS does not guarantee acceptance of every re-evaluation request, and scheduling is subject to the standard review queue. Re-evaluation requests do not result in score changes by themselves - the re-evaluation process is identical to the original evaluation process.
Re-evaluation requests are different from correction requests. A re-evaluation request asks ICAS to assess whether a platform's current state differs from what was scored. A correction request identifies a specific factual error in the existing published evaluation. Operators who disagree with a score but cannot identify a specific factual error should submit a re-evaluation request rather than a correction request.
Re-evaluation requests may be submitted via the Contact page. There is no fee for submitting a re-evaluation request.
Questions about ICAS's editorial standards, correction requests, re-evaluation requests, or affiliate disclosure inquiries can be submitted via the Contact page. ICAS aims to acknowledge all substantive inquiries within ten business days.