Editorial policy

Evidence levels

There are exactly three. Every page carries exactly one, and we never use a stronger label than the work justifies. This list is generated from the same definition the site itself uses, so it cannot drift out of date.

• L1 · Product Profile — Listed information collected and checked against the sources that publish it. No hands-on conclusion, no performance finding, and no implied experience.
• L2 · Research Reviewed — A deeper research evaluation across multiple sources. Still no physical test by us.
• L3 · Hands-on Tested — We bought the product and ran our published protocol on it. Raw measurements, original photographs and stated limitations.

How the three levels work, in full.

Things that are not evidence levels

Earlier drafts of this page listed five labels. That was wrong, and it is the kind of wrong that lets a page slip between definitions. These are attributes and methods, never labels of their own:

• “Not yet tested” is not a level — it is simply what Product Profile means.
• “Research-based comparison” and “owner feedback analysis” are research methods used inside Research Reviewed.
• “Long-term tested” is a duration attribute on a Hands-on Tested result, not a separate badge.

Listed specification versus verified fact versus claim

Every piece of product information on this site is in one of three groups.

• Checked against the source. The name, brand, listed dimensions, listed material, retailer and date. Verified as published by the source — not physically measured by us.
• Manufacturer or retailer claim. Anything about performance, safety, durability or quality. Reproduced in the seller’s words and labelled as theirs. TailVetted has not independently tested or confirmed it. “Toxin-free”, “waterproof”, “anti-slip” and “traps litter effectively” are claims, not specifications.
• TailVetted finding. Only what our own research or hands-on testing established. On a Product Profile this section is empty, and it says so.

Material is recorded twice for this reason: as listed and physically verified. The second is empty for every product in the catalog, because none has been physically examined.

Every review answers these

• Who is this best for, and who should avoid it?
• What problem does it solve, and what does it fail to solve?
• What evidence supports the conclusion?
• What does it cost to keep using over a year?
• What are the better alternatives?
• Was it bought, borrowed or supplied — and do we earn a commission?

On numbers

We publish raw measurements, not just conclusions, and we report spread across trials rather than a single flattering figure. Prices and specifications are dated, because they change.

What we do not reproduce

We do not reproduce retailer star ratings, review counts or sales ranks anywhere on this site. Nor units-sold figures, retailer badges, customer-review text, or any summary of customer sentiment.

On retailer figures

We do not reproduce retailer star ratings, customer-review text, review counts, sales ranks or units-sold figures anywhere on this site. Two reasons. They are the retailer’s data, not ours, and reproducing them is restricted by the programmes that publish them. And they are copied numbers rather than determined ones — this site stores a field only when TailVetted established it.

We do use those figures privately, to decide which products are worth cataloguing. That is a research input, not a published claim, and it never appears on a page.

Prices are published as ranges with the date the range was set, never as a live price. A stored price is wrong the day after it is stored.

On AI

AI tools help with research, drafting, transcription and organisation. They never generate a test result, a measurement, a quotation or an owner experience. Every number on this site came from a physical measurement or a cited source.

Corrections

Errors are corrected on the page, with a note saying what changed and when. We do not quietly edit a result.