Zimbabwe evidence desk
Methodology and scoring
A source-first method designed to make paid popularity less influential than exact identity, regulatory records and documented evidence.
Verdict rules
Only a current primary Zimbabwe record matching both the exact domain and operator.
Evidence remains open, incomplete, name-only, self-published or not current enough.
Only an official adverse record or corroborated documented adverse evidence.
Selection is not scoring
Affgate discovery data was analysed row by row and deduplicated into a private research queue. Its URLs, proprietary metrics and raw inventory are not published. Because the supplied trends file contained zero trend rows, local SERP relevance and evidence readiness drove prioritisation.
Evidence sequence
- Resolve the exact brand and domain.
- Identify the claimed legal operator.
- Check primary Zimbabwe records first.
- Record one narrow claim per source, with publisher, URL, access date, jurisdiction and tier.
- Use dated independent or user context to define questions, not to manufacture legal conclusions.
- Apply the verdict rule and publish the evidence limit.
What we do not do
- No fake aggregate rating or invented account test.
- No direct operator links.
- No green from popularity, a logo, a .co.zw domain or a self-published certificate.
- No red from a single anonymous review.
- No claim of guaranteed neutrality or perfect automation.
Research-to-article handoff
Each selected route currently contains one replaceable evidence shell. A later isolated process writes one original 1,800–2,500-word article per brand. The builder reads that static file and wraps it; it never composes dossier prose.