Recommendations wait for evidence.

Publishing gate

A published platform review should include:

• Test date and last-updated date.
• Amount spent or a clear note that no paid test has been completed.
• Test format, sample size, and support/refund checks.
• Evidence references such as screenshots, receipts, timestamps, and notes.
• A verdict that explains who should use it and who should skip it.

How we separate research from recommendations

A page may describe public research before paid testing is complete, but it should not sound like a final recommendation. Draft reviews and incomplete comparisons are held out of search indexing with noindex and excluded from the sitemap.

The PsychicScout editorial team is responsible for keeping these boundaries visible on every page type, including reviews, comparisons, guides, and tools.

Affiliate boundaries

Affiliate relationships do not guarantee a positive review, a ranking position, or a recommendation. PsychicScout may write caveats, neutral summaries, or not-recommended conclusions when the available evidence supports them.

Commercial CTA language should avoid claims like "guaranteed," "most accurate," or "best answer." Safer language points readers toward current pricing, terms, and evidence.

Negative claims and legal caution

Negative conclusions should be based on observable facts: price visibility, refund policy, support path, app flow, pressure language, response time, or documented test experience. We avoid claiming that a platform or advisor has a hidden motive unless that claim is supported by reliable evidence.

Update rhythm

Psychic platforms change offers, advisors, app flows, and policies. High-traffic pages should be rechecked regularly, and any material change should be reflected in the update log, verdict, and evidence status.