Kingy AI Trust Center
A repeatable path from source to conclusion.
Kingy AI reports should make the decision frame, evidence class, comparison rules, testing limits, and maintenance record visible to the reader.
Purpose and scope
This methodology governs Kingy AI research reports, market maps, comparison tables, scored frameworks, and evidence-led product analysis. It is designed to make the path from source to conclusion visible. It is not a claim that every article is scientific research, a controlled benchmark, or hands-on testing.
- Frame the decision.
Define the reader, question, time window, inclusion rules, and claims that matter. - Build the source record.
Collect primary documents first, record review dates, and identify gaps or conflicts. - Test where possible.
Record version, access level, device, task, input, conditions, and what was not tested. - Normalize comparisons.
Compare like with like; separate plans, regions, preview access, and vendor-reported metrics. - Review the draft.
Check each material claim, link, image, disclosure, date, limitation, and calculation. - Maintain the record.
Publish a cutoff date, add material update notes, and route errors through corrections.
Evidence labels
Every material claim in a Kingy AI report carries one of five labels, ordered here from strongest to weakest. The label belongs at the point of the claim, visible to the reader, not only in a note at the end of the article.
Kingy-tested
Kingy AI measured it first-hand under stated conditions. The article identifies the tested surface, the environment and what was not tested. Where a number is reported, the run that produced it is described in enough detail to be repeated.
Official source
The claim comes from a primary document published by the organization itself: a licence file, model card, changelog, specification, price page or filing. Cited to section or clause where the document has them, with the date it was read.
Third-party evidence
An independent party measured or documented it and Kingy AI did not control the conditions. Named, linked, and reported with the limits of that party’s method. Independent means independent of the organization being assessed.
Company claim
The organization asserts it and no independent confirmation exists. It stays attributed to the organization. Vendor demonstrations belong here: the behaviour may be real, but the vendor chose the conditions.
Not yet verified
Kingy AI looked and could not establish the claim, or the primary document does not address it. Recorded as an open question rather than omitted, because a gap in the evidence is itself a finding.
Comparison and scoring rules
A Kingy score is an editorial decision aid, not a universal scientific measurement. Every scored framework should name its dimensions, explain the scale, show material inputs, and identify subjective judgment. Weights should reflect the stated reader and task. Scores from different reports are not automatically comparable.
- Do not rank products that were evaluated under materially different access or evidence conditions without saying so.
- Do not infer performance from price, funding, customer logos, popularity, or benchmark marketing.
- Do not present modeled estimates as observed outcomes.
- Recalculate tables when a source changes; do not patch a headline number without checking dependent conclusions.
Freshness and dates
| Field | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Published | The date the article first became public. |
| Source review cutoff | The latest date through which the cited evidence set was reviewed. |
| Updated | A date attached only when the published content was materially changed. |
| Version or access date | The tested product version, plan, device, region, or date needed to interpret an observation. |
AI-assisted editorial work
AI tools may help organize source notes, identify inconsistencies, draft structures, transform formats, or support quality checks. They are not accountable authors or independent sources. A human editor remains responsible for material claims, citations, disclosures, calculations, and publication. Model output should not be used as evidence unless the output itself is the subject of a documented test.
Limitations and conflicts
Reports should disclose evidence gaps, products not tested, access constraints, fast-changing prices, geographic limits, and relevant commercial relationships. If a conflict cannot be managed with disclosure and editorial controls, the work should not be presented as independent analysis.