A developer, before integrating
Read the source-kinds table and the four-verdict rules. That is what your product will be passing on to a user, and it is the part you will be held to.
EVIDENCE STANDARD
What counts as proof.
The rules we check against: what must not be in the food, and what must stay under a number. Published in full, so you can check our reasoning instead of trusting it. Version 1.0, effective 30 August 2026.
v1.0published 30 Aug 2026next review 28 Feb 2027
WHO THIS IS FOR
A risk or procurement reader
This is the control document. It is versioned, dated, and changes in public. Nothing in it is negotiable per customer.
Anyone building something similar
Take it. A standard others build against is worth more to us than a database others cannot see.
This document says what counts as proof and what does not. It makes no claim about any particular food, and it promises nothing about outcomes.
Two kinds of check
What you ask decides what counts as proof. The check is the same; the evidence it needs is not.
| Premise | What it asserts | What must be covered |
|---|---|---|
| Absence | This must not be present. The nine major allergens, plus anything more specific you name; “cashew” is recorded as cashew, not blurred into “tree nut”. | Both halves must be covered: what is in it (the ingredient list) and how it is made (shared equipment, surfaces, practice). The list alone never produces a clear. |
| Threshold | This must stay under a number, per serving. Sodium, added sugar, saturated fat, potassium, protein floors. | The nutrition panel alone, cited and dated, with its serving size stated. How it is made does not apply here; a number does not rub off a shared board. |
Absence
What it asserts
This must not be present. The nine major allergens, plus anything more specific you name; “cashew” is recorded as cashew, not blurred into “tree nut”.
What must be covered
Both halves must be covered: what is in it (the ingredient list) and how it is made (shared equipment, surfaces, practice). The list alone never produces a clear.
Threshold
What it asserts
This must stay under a number, per serving. Sodium, added sugar, saturated fat, potassium, protein floors.
What must be covered
The nutrition panel alone, cited and dated, with its serving size stated. How it is made does not apply here; a number does not rub off a shared board.
The both-halves rule applies to allergens only.
Numbers work differently. Nothing picks up sodium from a shared board. A number stands or falls on one source, the panel: whether it exists, is current, and states its serving.
Source kinds, and the highest verdict each can reach
Who wrote the evidence decides how far it can take you, not whether it happens to be right. A correct reading of a PDF is still our reading, not theirs.
| Source | What it is | Ceiling |
|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer label | A legal declaration by the party that made the food | no conflict found |
| Nutrition panel | A mandatory declaration by the party that made the food, per stated serving | no conflict found |
| Venue statement | Filed by a named person at the venue, dated and superseding | no conflict found |
| Structured menu field | Item names in a machine-readable field the venue maintains | no conflict found |
| Q-PREP answer | A dated answer attributed to a named person | no conflict found |
| Document | A PDF or HTML menu we parsed | ask one question |
| Image | A menu or label we transcribed from a photo | ask one question |
| Agent claim | Ingredients or menu text supplied by an agent | ask one question |
| Spoken claim | “It has no nuts”, unattributed or unrecorded | couldn't verify |
| Nothing | No source on either axis | couldn't verify |
Manufacturer label
What it is
A legal declaration by the party that made the food
Ceiling
no conflict found
Nutrition panel
What it is
A mandatory declaration by the party that made the food, per stated serving
Ceiling
no conflict found
Venue statement
What it is
Filed by a named person at the venue, dated and superseding
Ceiling
no conflict found
Structured menu field
What it is
Item names in a machine-readable field the venue maintains
Ceiling
no conflict found
Q-PREP answer
What it is
A dated answer attributed to a named person
Ceiling
no conflict found
Document
What it is
A PDF or HTML menu we parsed
Ceiling
ask one question
Image
What it is
A menu or label we transcribed from a photo
Ceiling
ask one question
Agent claim
What it is
Ingredients or menu text supplied by an agent
Ceiling
ask one question
Spoken claim
What it is
“It has no nuts”, unattributed or unrecorded
Ceiling
couldn't verify
Nothing
What it is
No source on either axis
Ceiling
couldn't verify
A claim can create a conflict. It can never create a clear.
Unverified presence is a flag; unverified absence is not a pass. One sentence about pesto changes the answer. Three reassuring ones do not.
The four verdicts, and when each is issued
no conflict found
Both what is in it and how it is made were covered by a source that can say so, and nothing you named was found.
conflict found
A restriction is present on any source, including a claim. Presence is enough.
ask one question
One half is covered. The other can be closed by a single question, and we tell you exactly what to ask.
couldn't verify
The gap cannot be closed by any question available. Stated plainly, never softened.
Dating and supersession
Every verdict names the source it rested on and the date that source was read.
| Rule | Detail |
|---|---|
| Verdicts are dated | A verdict is a statement about a date, not a standing fact. |
| Statements supersede | A new venue statement replaces the old one from its effective date forward. |
| No retro-clearing | Verdicts issued under a superseded statement keep their original date. They are not re-cleared and not re-failed. |
| Premise changes invalidate | Changing the restriction set voids every verdict under the previous premise. Nothing carries over. |
Verdicts are dated
Detail
A verdict is a statement about a date, not a standing fact.
Statements supersede
Detail
A new venue statement replaces the old one from its effective date forward.
No retro-clearing
Detail
Verdicts issued under a superseded statement keep their original date. They are not re-cleared and not re-failed.
Premise changes invalidate
Detail
Changing the restriction set voids every verdict under the previous premise. Nothing carries over.
What never counts
- A collective term that hides the source, “natural flavoring”, “spices”, “natural colors”.
- Silence in prose. A menu that does not mention nuts is evidence of nothing.
- A marketing claim, “non-dairy”, “plant-based”, “allergy friendly”.
- An unanswered question, however likely the answer.
- Any payment. Publishing evidence is free and a paying publisher gets the same ruling as anyone else.
- A front-of-pack claim standing in for the panel. “Low sodium” on the label is a claim, not a measurement.
- A panel with no stated serving basis. Per 100g and per serving are different answers to the same question.
Changing this standard
Versioned, dated, and public. Proposals are welcome and are answered in public.
| Version | Date | Change |
|---|---|---|
| v1.0 | 30 Aug 2026 | First published. |
v1.0
Date
30 Aug 2026
Change
First published.