Quick answer: VapeRisk labels a page as a Review only when it has handled or tested the exact product and can preserve a traceable sample and method record. Public-specification or announcement-based pages remain Spec Analysis, First Look or another source-led format and stay unscored. A numeric score or Review schema requires an exact sample, a declared method, a documented scoring rule and visible limitations. Product supply, advertising, sponsorship or affiliate compensation cannot buy a score, conclusion, ranking, publication decision or removal of an unfavourable finding.
Updated July 21, 2026. This policy now includes the source-led Evidence File label, explicit schema limits and the current correction rules.
How VapeRisk labels product coverage
| Label | Minimum evidence | What it must not imply |
|---|---|---|
| Review | VapeRisk handled or tested the exact product and retains a sample and method record. | That every unit, market version or long-term outcome was tested. |
| Spec Analysis or Evidence File | Current first-party documents and clearly attributed external records. | Hands-on use, measured performance, a score or an independent product verdict. |
| First Look | Early product information with the evidence state and unknowns stated prominently. | A completed evaluation, final recommendation or verified market availability. |
| Lab Tested | An identified sample, stated method, recorded conditions and result under VapeRisk’s method rules. | Accredited certification, universal product safety or every-unit performance. |
A page may keep a historical URL containing /reviews/ for owner continuity while its visible label and schema are corrected to a source-led Article. The URL alone does not prove that VapeRisk tested the product.
Minimum sample and provenance record
A hands-on or test-based conclusion needs an exact product record. Where available, the working file should identify the product name, model or revision, market and SKU, acquisition route, acquisition date, quantity, packaging or lot evidence, supplied-product disclosure, condition on receipt and any return, retention or disposal agreement.
Missing fields remain unknown. A retailer listing, launch page, manufacturer sample or event demonstration must not be silently converted into a retail-purchase record. When the source of a sample could affect independence or availability, the public page discloses that relationship.
Method, conditions and evidence limits
The review file should state what question was tested, what equipment or observation process was used, the relevant conditions, repetitions, exclusions and failure cases. Measurements should preserve units and distinguish instrument readings, calculations, visual observations, manufacturer claims and estimates.
The Testing Methodology owns detailed measurement, uncertainty and correction rules. The lab-report reading guide explains how readers can check sample identity, method fit, units, reporting limits and quality controls. A precise number is not automatically a strong result if the sample or method record is weak.
When VapeRisk may use a numeric score
A numeric score is optional, not the default. It may be used only when the exact product has a traceable sample, the evaluated categories are relevant to that product, the scoring scale and weights are documented, the observations or measurements supporting each category are retained, and the limitations are visible.
- No score is assigned from manufacturer specifications, retailer listings, outside-review consensus, search snippets or a supplied spreadsheet alone.
- Categories that were not tested remain unscored rather than receiving an inferred midpoint.
- Scores from different product classes or materially different methods are not presented as directly comparable.
- A change in sample, firmware, coil, liquid, market version or method may require a new result rather than a silent score edit.
- If the evidence record cannot support the score, the score and Review/Rating schema are removed while the useful source record remains.
Review factors are product and method specific
Depending on the exact product and method, a review may consider build and assembly, leakage observations, charging or battery behaviour, controls, refill or pod handling, flavour delivery, coil or cartridge life, label transparency, product claims, documentation and safety-relevant observations. Not every review tests every factor.
VapeRisk does not convert the presence of a charging port, screen, mesh term, puff headline, compliance label or brand reputation into a measured performance result. Exact-model findings stay separate from family-wide or market-wide claims.
Commercial relationships and editorial control
Product supply, event access, advertising, sponsorship and affiliate relationships are disclosed under the Sponsorship Standards and Affiliate Disclosure. A commercial party may provide a product, manual, correction, test record or written asset permission. It may not choose the method outcome, buy a favourable score, pre-approve the conclusion, suppress an unfavourable result, require competitor exclusion or purchase ranking and indexing outcomes.
Factual corrections are reviewed separately from requests to change tone, ranking or editorial judgment. The Editorial Policy controls corrections and content-type boundaries.
Sources, images and unsupported claims
Manufacturer and regulator records can establish attributed facts within their exact scope. Retailer, forum, video and outside-review material may identify questions or corroborate that a claim is being made, but it does not become a VapeRisk measurement. Conflicts between credible records remain visible rather than being averaged into a new fact.
Product images, packaging, screenshots and logos require a documented reuse right or an appropriate original VapeRisk asset. Receiving a product does not automatically grant permission to reuse every manufacturer image.
Updates, corrections and product revisions
Material changes are dated. A page should explain whether an update reflects a factual correction, new official source, new sample, retest, changed method, revised product, market-specific version or editorial clarification. The old evidence boundary is preserved when it is needed to understand why a conclusion changed.
VapeRisk may retire a score or Review schema without deleting the Owner when the original evidence is incomplete. A corrected source-led Article can remain useful for entity identity, manuals, claims, compatibility boundaries and unanswered questions.
Schema and machine-readable rules
Source-led pages use Article and, when visible questions match exactly, FAQPage. Review, Product, Rating, AggregateRating and Offer markup is used only when the visible page and retained evidence support those claims. Structured data must not restore a score, tested status, price, availability or product conclusion that the visible article does not support.
Interactive tools may use WebApplication markup only when the visible page provides the described function. The Vape Juice Calculator is an example of transparent arithmetic with Article and FAQ context; the tool markup does not make it a Product review, measurement or nicotine-target recommendation.
The VapeRisk Labs hub and Claimed vs Measured dataset show how sample-level evidence and manufacturer claims are kept separate.
Frequently asked questions
What makes a VapeRisk page a Review?
A Review requires that VapeRisk handled or tested the exact product and retains a traceable sample and method record. Public specifications or announcements alone support a source-led format, not a hands-on Review.
Can a source-led product page receive a numeric score?
No. Manufacturer specifications, retailer listings, outside-review consensus and search snippets do not support a VapeRisk product score. A score requires an exact sample, declared method, documented scoring rule and visible limitations.
Does a supplied product guarantee a review or positive result?
No. Supplying a product does not guarantee coverage, timing, a score, a favourable conclusion or publication. The relationship must be disclosed, and VapeRisk retains control of the method and result.
Can a brand review or approve an article before publication?
A brand may correct verifiable factual errors or provide missing records. It cannot pre-approve the editorial conclusion, remove supported criticism, choose a score, demand competitor exclusion or control publication and indexing decisions.
Why might VapeRisk remove an old score?
VapeRisk may remove a score when the retained record does not prove the exact sample, method, scoring rule or repeatability needed to support it. The useful source and product-identity record can remain as an unscored Article.
Does one tested sample represent every product unit?
No. A result belongs to the identified sample and stated conditions. Batch variation, product revisions, market versions, liquids, settings and use patterns can produce different outcomes.
How are review corrections and updates handled?
Material changes are dated and identified as a correction, new source, new sample, retest, method change, product revision or editorial clarification. Missing evidence remains unknown rather than being silently filled.
Related policies and evidence
- Editorial Policy
- Testing Methodology
- VapeRisk Labs
- Claimed vs Measured
- OXVA NeXLIM source-led Evidence File – a current example with official-source attribution, no hands-on claim and no score.
- Vape Juice Calculator – a WebApplication example with visible formulas, input limits and safety scope.
- Sponsorship Standards
- Affiliate Disclosure