Evisentra Claim Readiness Rubric v0.1
How a claim and its evidence are judged — public and reproducible, so you can check (and challenge) the reasoning.
Claim-readiness dimensions: 0 = missing · 1 = weak · 2 = partial · 3 = strong. Evidence items are graded separately on a 1–5 quality (DQR) scale.
| Dimension | What we check |
|---|---|
| Claim specificity | A specific, named, provable attribute — not a vague 'eco / green / sustainable'. |
| Evidence fit | The evidence type actually addresses the claim (recyclability needs collection data, not an LCA). |
| Boundary clarity | System boundary / functional unit stated; any comparison is like-for-like. |
| Market-rule fit | Meets the markets sold into — US FTC + California AB 1305, EU ECGT, UK DMCC. |
| Standard / method named | A recognised standard is cited (ISO 14067/14021/14026, EN 13432, ASTM, GHG Protocol). |
| Evidence independence | Third-party verified outranks second-party, which outranks self-declared. |
| Burden-shifting risk | A benefit claim does not hide a bigger impact elsewhere (low carbon vs high water / land). |
| Public / private evidence status | The basis is public and re-checkable, or private and unverifiable. |
| Uncertainty / gap disclosure | Uncertainty and missing data are disclosed, not hidden in a headline figure. |
| Safer wording available | A specific, qualified rewrite exists when the literal claim is risky. |
Who authored this
Authored by Evisentra (Nutavix LLC) from public regulatory guidance (US FTC Green Guides + California AB 1305, the EU Empowering Consumers Directive, the UK DMCC Act) and public LCA standards (ISO 14067/14021/14026, EN 13432, GHG Protocol). Public and reproducible — not a proprietary black box, and not legal advice.
How to challenge it
Disagree with a dimension or a score? The method is public and the engine recomputes in public. Send a critique to [email protected] — substantive challenges and our response are logged.