Criterion One: Information Accuracy Against Primary Sources
The first question is whether the information a service provides is accurate when checked against primary sources — official exchange data, regulatory documents, and platform terms. A service that accurately summarises a platform's fee schedule deserves a different assessment than one that reproduces the platform's own marketing copy. Accuracy is checked by pulling the primary source and comparing it sentence by sentence, not by accepting the service's representation at face value.
Criterion Two: Completeness of Disclosure
A partial truth can mislead as effectively as a false one. The completeness criterion asks whether a service covers all material aspects of a platform — not just the features the platform promotes but also the limitations, the risk disclosures, and the exit terms. A review that covers fees but not withdrawal restrictions, or that addresses product features but not regulatory status, is incomplete in a way that matters to a trader making a real decision.
Criterion Three: Editorial Independence
Independence is a structural question, not a declaration. The relevant question is not whether a service claims to be independent but whether its revenue model creates an incentive to favour positive assessments. A service funded entirely by referral commissions from the platforms it reviews has a structural incentive that shapes what it covers and how. The absence of a financial relationship with the reviewed platform is a necessary — though not sufficient — condition for independence.
Criterion Four: Readability for a Non-Specialist Audience
The population of people seeking information on trading platforms is not uniformly expert. A review that requires a background in financial regulation to understand is functionally useless to most of its readers. The readability criterion assesses whether the service explains regulatory and financial concepts in plain language, defines terms when they first appear, and avoids jargon that obscures rather than clarifies. Technical accuracy and readability are not in conflict — they require deliberate effort to achieve simultaneously.