Skip to main content

​
What you get

A per-claim verdict on a supplier’s technical assertions: independently supported, supported only under narrower conditions, contradicted, or unstudied — with citations and the specific conditions each finding applies to.

​
Who it’s for

Technical evaluation teams, process and materials engineers assessing a new supplier, and anyone whose qualification programme is about to be sized around a vendor’s datasheet.

​
How it works

1

Split the datasheet into testable claims

“Higher throughput and better uniformity” is two claims with different evidence. Extract each as a proposition naming the material or system, the condition, the metric, and the comparator.
2

Pin down the comparator

“30% better” is meaningless without what it is better than. If the vendor has not said, that is itself a finding — record it and search against the conventional alternative.
3

Search the mechanism, not the brand

Trade names rarely appear in the literature. Search the underlying material, chemistry, or technique. This is the step that determines whether you find anything at all.
4

Run the negative pass

Search explicitly for null findings and failures with this approach. Independent groups publish disappointments that vendors do not mention.
5

Check the conditions match yours

A claim independently confirmed under conditions unlike your process is not confirmed for you. State the delta.

​
The API calls

​
Grading each claim

The vendor-only row does most of the work here. A claim supported exclusively by the supplier’s own publications is not independently verified, and that distinction rarely survives a datasheet review otherwise.

​
What to check before you trust it

  • Check author affiliations on supporting papers. Supplier-authored or supplier-funded work is legitimate evidence but is not independent, and the difference matters for a qualification decision.
  • Unstudied is not disproven. A genuinely novel material will have thin independent literature. Treat it as a reason to test rather than a reason to reject.
  • Coverage is patchy in this literature. Much applied engineering work sits in closed proceedings; a thin result is weak evidence of absence.
  • This informs qualification, it does not replace it. The literature tells you what to test and what to watch for, not whether the part works in your process.

Compare candidate materials against published test data

Evaluate the alternatives on the same footing.

Substantiate a product claim with published evidence

The same discipline applied to your own claims.

Best practices

Filter ladder and the rest of the primitives.

All use cases

Browse the gallery by persona.