Trust & transparency
Research you can trace to its source
Owner-review draft — not yet approved or effective. A proposed approach to traceable programme research and useful comparisons.
Start with relevant official evidence
Use official programme pages, official network listings and applicable merchant terms. Record the source URL, when it was checked and what the source actually supports. A public page does not prove a particular applicant’s eligibility or private account terms.
Separate confirmed and unknown fields
Record confirmed conditions with context, including relevant currency, region, commission type or eligibility limits. Mark missing or conflicting information as unconfirmed rather than filling gaps with estimates. Withhold records when publication requirements are not met.
Compare like with like
Explain which dimensions are being compared and where the available evidence is incomplete. Different commercial models may not support a direct numerical comparison. Avoid a universal winner or invented composite score. A programme’s place in a list is not evidence of superiority.
Calculations and assumptions
Tools apply the inputs and assumptions shown with the calculation. Their outputs model a scenario rather than predict actual income. Illustrative inputs are not independently verified benchmarks. Read the applicable limitations before interpreting a result.
Maintain the research
Use verification history and review dates to identify changes and records needing attention. A last-checked date is a statement about a check, not a guarantee that terms remain unchanged. Send conflicting evidence or corrections to help@withaffiliatemarketing.com. Ongoing review ownership must be assigned before launch.