Reviews
Part of UGC marketplace review method: ten evidence checks for one UK commission
How UGC services are reviewed here, with fictional-data tests and no averaging of failures
Apply a reproducible England UGC review method with exact service identity, an evidence hierarchy, fictional-data tests and separate pass gates.
Verdict: the method is ready for a future review, but no provider verdict is. The lead editorial reviewer is to be assigned, and no exact service dossier or authorised test account was available at the 6 September 2026 cut-off.
This page is a methodology page. It is not a comparison, a ranking or a best list. No provider verdicts exist yet, so there is no review list to read.
What to take away
- The method is ready for a future review, but no provider verdict is ready yet.
- Each candidate must supply evidence across ten dossier fields, and each gate keeps its own verdict.
- Hard failures such as missing identity, rights or safeguarding cannot be offset by a convenient feature.
Name the review subject
Every review names one legal entity, one exact service, one terms version and one purpose. A brand name alone is not a subject. Two services from one company are two subjects, and each needs its own dossier.
Check the legal entity through the Companies House service for company information, which offers free email alerts when a company updates its details, for example a change of director or address. Then obtain the service boundary from current first-party records. A filed company fact does not verify a product, creator roster, availability, rights or performance.
Disclose people, evidence and conflicts
The review header records the reviewing body, named lead, specialist reviewers, date, funder, affiliate interest, free access, gifts and supplier contact. It lists every page, contract, demonstration and independent record opened. Supplier-selected testimonials and case studies stay labelled supplier claims.
Use four status labels, as set out in the guide to evidence classes: documented, observed in the authorised fictional-data test, contradicted, or unknown. Desk reading is not hands-on use. A demonstration is not a buyer-run test. A synthetic result applies only to the recorded account, edition, role and date.
Apply the same dossier fields
Each candidate must provide evidence for:
- legal identity, exact service, UK availability and responsibility;
- creator-data provenance, freshness, definitions, corrections and deletion;
- creator or representative authority and age-uncertainty handling;
- brief, claims, commercial disclosure, versions and acceptance;
- music, image, likeness, editing, media, territory and term rights;
- accessible creator tasks, buyer controls and final output;
- privacy purpose, roles, PECR decision, transfers and retention;
- least privilege, logs, incidents and account recovery;
- payer, payee, fee unit, currency, VAT field and cancellation;
- complaints, correction, export, deletion, continuity and exit.
Each field maps to a source. Companies House covers legal identity. The Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations apply to organisations that send electronic marketing messages by phone, fax, email or text, or use cookies. The person who creates an image will generally be the first owner of its copyright, so a buyer needs written rights evidence.
For the privacy role, an ICO controller and processor guide states that organisations determining the purposes and means of processing are controllers however a contract describes them. Reviewers therefore test the role on the facts, not the label. The compliance guide lists the wider legal gates.
Run a pre-declared control pack
The fictional input contains duplicate identity, unclear representation, an unsupported claim, undisclosed consideration, missing media rights, unknown age, an inaccessible edit, excessive access, payment mismatch and correction, suppression, export and deletion requests. Before testing, write the expected stop, evidence and owner for each case.
For security, the 12 supply chain security principles from the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) help establish control and oversight of suppliers. It supports asking how a candidate's controls are checked in practice. It does not certify the candidate. The launch review sets the evidence record for each gate.
Decide without averaging hard failures
Record PASS, HOLD, FAIL or NOT APPLICABLE against each dossier field. A missing identity, authority, claims, rights, safeguarding, privacy, accessibility, security, payment or exit record cannot be offset by a convenient feature. Use the selection checklist to see which gates stop an appointment. Optional-feature weights and thresholds remain blank.
The final verdict states the exact configuration and next reversible action. It also names untested areas and expiry triggers. With no candidate evidence here, the outcome remains HOLD rather than an invented score.
Worked example, using the identity field. A fictional candidate files a Companies House record under one name but sells under a second trading name with no written link. The identity field records FAIL, and no feature offsets it. A written link, reviewed against the commercial contracts, would move the field to HOLD.
Preserve the decision trail
Publish the evidence matrix under a stable review identifier. When a reviewer changes a status, keep the former entry, reason, source and approval time.
Readers must tell apart a new document, a corrected factual error and a changed buyer requirement. The owner sets a recheck date for identity, service, terms and data sources. Subprocessors and test configuration share it. The method for suppliers is covered in vendor due diligence.
Before you act
- Name one legal entity, exact service, terms version and purpose.
- Record the named lead, funder, affiliate interest and free access.
- Label each item documented, observed, contradicted or unknown.
- Write expected stop, evidence and owner before testing.
- Record PASS, HOLD, FAIL or NOT APPLICABLE per dossier field.
- Set a recheck date for identity, terms, data sources and subprocessors.
Common questions
What must the review subject identify before any testing starts?
One legal entity, one exact service, one terms version and one purpose. A brand name alone does not qualify, and two services from one company are two separate subjects. Each subject needs its own dossier before any test account is opened.
Why can a filed company fact not verify a supplier?
A filed company fact does not verify a product, creator roster, availability, rights or performance. Reviewers check the legal entity through Companies House, then obtain the service boundary from current first-party records before treating any supplier claim as evidence.
What happens when a reviewer changes an evidence status?
The former entry, reason, source and approval time are retained. A candidate can return from HOLD only through the missing gate, not through a higher score elsewhere. Readers should be able to tell a new document from a corrected error or a changed buyer requirement.
