Methodology governance

Think a weight is wrong? Make the case.

The methodology is public because it should be testable. If you believe a weight, a standard, or a dimension is wrong, tell us which one and why, and we will review it on the record.

Every substantive challenge gets a written response. Accepted changes are documented in the change log and shipped in a future version, with attribution if you want it.

See the full revision history → Read the methodology →
Submit your challenge
Name the change, make the argument, attach your evidence. We acknowledge every submission within two business days.

Submissions are reviewed by the methodology governance team. We may follow up to clarify your argument.

How we process your submission

Every challenge runs the same path.

No back channel, no favorites. The same six steps apply to every submission, whether it comes from a customer, a standards body, or a competitor.

01 / Received

Logged and acknowledged

Your submission is recorded with a tracking reference and acknowledged within two business days, so it cannot quietly disappear.

02 / Triage

Scoped and classified

We confirm the challenge targets a specific weight, standard, or dimension, and that the argument is complete enough to evaluate. If not, we come back to you.

03 / Evidence review

Tested against the record

The governance team weighs your argument and evidence against the current methodology and the published standards it builds on.

04 / Deliberation

Taken to the review cycle

Substantive challenges enter the next scheduled methodology review. We may ask you to clarify your case or supply more data during this stage.

05 / Decision

Answered in writing

You receive a written decision: accepted, partially accepted, or declined, each with the reasoning behind it. No silent rejections.

06 / Adoption

Shipped in a version

Accepted changes are scheduled into a future methodology release and recorded in the change log, with attribution to you if you want it.

What we expect from you

A real argument, not just an objection.

01
Name the specific change
Which weight, standard, or dimension, and what it should become. Vague disagreement cannot be reviewed.
02
Bring the evidence
Data, worked examples, or references to a published standard. The stronger the evidence, the faster the review.
03
Stay reachable
Be available to answer follow-up questions during the review. A short call is sometimes the fastest way to resolve a point.
04
Accept the outcome
Not every challenge is adopted. Every substantive one gets a reasoned answer, and the decision is final for that version cycle.
The bar for adoption

What it takes to change the score.

A change is adopted when it measurably improves the methodology. The review weighs each challenge against four tests:

✓Validity. It makes the score a truer measure of machine readability, not just a preference.
✓Grounding. It stays consistent with the published standards the methodology builds on.
✓Comparability. It does not break the ability to compare scores over time without a clear, documented reason.
✓Evidence. The case is backed by data or standards, not a single anecdote.
Minor adjustments ship in a point release. Changes that move scores materially are held for a major version, announced ahead of adoption so nothing shifts under you without notice.

Make the methodology better.

The strongest catalogs are measured against a standard worth trusting. If you can sharpen that standard, we want to hear it.

Submit a methodology challenge →