Download the working template
The CSV opens in spreadsheet software. It contains illustrative examples, not real customer data or product test results. Replace them before using the register in a live response.
1. Break the answer into claims
Do not approve a whole paragraph because one sentence has a citation. Split product capability, scope, timing and contractual commitments into separate claims. Assign a stable question ID and keep the exact draft wording.
2. Record the supporting excerpt
Capture the source filename, version, section and exact supporting text. State which part of the claim it supports. “We encrypt data” does not by itself prove a named algorithm, region or key-management model.
3. Make an explicit evidence decision
| Decision | Reviewer action |
|---|---|
| Supported | Confirm scope and source freshness, then approve the exact wording. |
| Partial | Narrow the statement to what the evidence supports. |
| Unsupported | Escalate to an owner or leave an honest gap; do not infer a control. |
| Conflicting | Resolve document precedence before approving either version. |
4. Retain ownership and submission history
Record the domain owner, corrected wording, approval date and final export reference. Keep private evidence in an approved system; the register can contain a restricted reference instead of copying sensitive report excerpts. Reopening a question should invalidate the earlier approval until the owner signs again.
Illustrative example
Draft: All customer data is deleted immediately.
Source: A hypothetical policy states that backup copies expire after a defined retention window.
Decision: Partial. Replace “all data immediately” with wording that accurately describes the backup window, subject to the owner’s approval.
Use the register in a fair software pilot
Apply the same sample and review standard to every vendor. Count unsupported claims before and after review, correction time and export issues. These observations describe your pilot; they do not establish a universal accuracy score.
Research and evaluation method →Apply this evaluation
About this research
Public-source research and editorial evaluation guidance. Product claims retain source dates; no hands-on test or named author is implied.
Our research method →