methodology

Editorial and review methodology

Our working rule

Every material statement should make clear what kind of knowledge it represents. A manufacturer specification can be useful, but it is not an independent measurement. A plausible mechanism is not the same as a demonstrated clinical outcome. Personal experience is not proof of a general health effect.

Research and experience labels

PLT records six provenance states:

The label describes provenance, not a quality score. At present, the launch panel shortlist is PLT-researched and not PLT-tested.

Product comparisons

We consider price and value, wavelengths, physical size, usable specifications, warranty and return terms, Australian purchasing implications, source quality, and unresolved questions. We preserve original units and measurement conditions where conversion or normalisation could imply false precision.

We do not award decimal scores or manufacture a winner when the source material cannot support one. Irradiance claims are compared only when distance, instrument and method are sufficiently compatible. Missing or contradictory data stays visible.

Scientific evidence

Evidence records distinguish laboratory, animal, observational, controlled human, randomised human, review and historical/government material. Editorial claims link to source records, and summaries include limitations. Manufacturer marketing cannot stand in for scientific evidence.

Affiliate independence

Commission does not determine coverage, ranking or conclusions. Merchant destinations are stored centrally, and affiliate status can only be activated after the owner records approval. The current product links are ordinary, untagged merchant links.

If a relationship changes, the destination and disclosure must change together. Read the affiliate disclosure →