What this desk is for

The problem this desk was built for

A shared list of marketplace links solves one problem and creates another. It solves discovery: instead of searching a marketplace with two and a half million sellers, you open a document someone else already filtered. It creates a gap between the moment you have a link and the moment you decide whether to pay.

That gap is where this desk sits. It does not add rows to the list. It publishes the criteria you need to read the evidence that arrives after you ask a seller for photographs.

What is published here

Three things. Judging points: fifty-one of them, each breaking one observation down into the photos required, the thresholds that separate a pass from a query from a return, and the condition that should stop you entirely. Gauges: nine working calculators, including a scorecard that refuses to issue a verdict when the evidence is below the level a step requires.

And a roster: records of seller directions, each with a source type, a sample size, a check date and the conditions under which the record would be withdrawn. There are no shop names in it and no ratings, by design.

What is deliberately not here

No catalogue of products. No product photographs. No prices for goods, no stock states, no cart, no checkout and no order form. This desk never sells anything and never asks you to transact through it.

No countdowns, no remaining quantities, no urgency devices of any kind. The one page that touches discounts is a static three-field check of recorded codes, and it deliberately shows no time remaining.

No accounts, no comments, no community features. A correction channel exists, and everything else about participation does not.

Why the writing is attributed to a desk rather than a person

Every page carries the same attribution because the judgements are editorial rather than personal. A named individual writing about counterfeit-adjacent categories attracts pressure that has nothing to do with the accuracy of the criteria, and a personal byline invites readers to weigh the person rather than the threshold.

The trade-off is real: an organisation is harder to trust than a person you can evaluate. The compensation is that every criterion carries its evidence level, every record carries a sample size, and every parameter carries a check date. Those are checkable in a way that a byline is not.

How being wrong is handled

A criterion that turns out to be wrong is corrected, and the correction is logged in the change archive with the date and the reason. A record whose source can no longer be verified is retired and kept visible as retired rather than deleted, because a withdrawal is itself information.

When a page passes its review window without being re-checked, it says so on the page. This desk would rather show a stale label than imply a freshness it cannot support.

How this desk is funded

Links to a partner catalogue carry a marker identifying this desk as the source of the visit, and where those visits lead to a purchase this desk may receive a benefit. The partner links page sets out exactly what that does and does not change.

There is no other revenue: no advertising, no sponsored criteria, no paid placement in the roster, no data sales.

Getting in touch

The correction channel is the only inbound route, and it is described in full on its own page. There is no general enquiry address and no social account, which is a deliberate narrowing rather than an oversight.