The 5-Point Quality Filter
How every product earns, or loses, our recommendation.
The same five checks apply to every supplement we cover, in the same order, regardless of brand or commission. We review everything honestly, but we only recommend a product that clears all five. A product that hides its doses in a proprietary blend cannot clear the dosing check, so it earns a Conditional verdict rather than a pass. Here's exactly what we look at, and how the score maps to a recommendation.
We are not doctors. We are independent researchers who spend dozens of hours analyzing peer-reviewed clinical trials so you don't have to. This filter, not a medical credential, is how we earn your trust.
Ingredients & transparency
We reward a fully disclosed label. When a product hides its actives inside a "proprietary blend", the real per-ingredient amounts are unknown, so this check cannot pass. We still review the product honestly, but a hidden-dose blend caps it at a Conditional verdict, never a recommendation. We also check sourcing, common allergens, and whether each active has a legitimate reason to be in the formula.
Learn more about this check →Clinically-relevant dosing
An ingredient only counts if it's dosed at the level used in the studies that support it. We compare each active against published effective ranges. When the amount is hidden in a proprietary blend, dose adequacy cannot be verified and cannot pass: undisclosed or under-dosed "fairy dusting" loses points fast.
Learn more about this check →Evidence quality
We prioritise human, peer-reviewed research over animal studies, marketing whitepapers, or single testimonials. Where the evidence is thin or conflicted, we say so plainly rather than rounding up.
Learn more about this check →Safety & interactions
We flag known side effects, contraindications, and interactions with common medications. Anything with a serious safety question is held back regardless of how well it scores elsewhere.
Learn more about this check →Value for money
Finally, price per effective dose, not price per bottle. A product can be cheap and still poor value if the actives are under-dosed, or expensive and worth it if the formula genuinely delivers.
Learn more about this check →How the score maps to a recommendation
Every product gets a reproducible Trust Score out of 5, a weighted average of five checks: Ingredient Evidence (25%), Formula Transparency (20%), Safety & Tolerability (20%), Value & Guarantee (20%), Brand Trust & Manufacturing (15%). The score maps to a fixed verdict tier:
- 4.3 – 5.0: Recommended. Clears every check, including disclosed, clinically-relevant doses.
- 3.5 – 4.2: Recommended with a documented reservation. One or two checks fall short; we say exactly which.
- 2.5 – 3.4: Conditional (no general recommendation). Reviewed honestly, but not verifiable enough to recommend, typically because doses are hidden in a proprietary blend or the finished formula has no independent trial.
- Below 2.5: Not recommended. Fails on safety, evidence or value.
Critical-failure rule (overrides the average): hidden active doses in a proprietary blend, or the absence of essential safety evidence, caps the verdict at Conditional regardless of the weighted score. A strong average can never override a fundamental transparency or safety gap — a product only clears the cap by disclosing its per-ingredient doses.
Why "Conditional" exists: most supplements sold through affiliate funnels hide their doses in proprietary blends. We won't fake a pass for them — but we also won't pretend they're scams. Conditional is the honest middle: reviewed and useful, but not verifiable enough to recommend.
A different checklist for a different product
The Digital Audio Score
Two products on this site — The Brain Song and The Genius Song — are digital brainwave-entrainment audio downloads, not supplements. Running them through the supplement Trust Score above would mean scoring "Ingredient Evidence" and "Formula Transparency" against a product that has no ingredient and no formula: a forced fit, not an honest measurement. These two reviews instead use a dedicated Digital Audio Score, a weighted average of five checks built specifically for what an audio-entrainment product actually is:
- Mechanism Evidence (25%) — does the claimed brainwave-entrainment effect have real, controlled human research behind it, in the right population and delivery format, not an adjacent or animal-model study standing in for it?
- Claim Consistency (20%) — does the seller state the same target frequency, format, and session length everywhere, including its own official page, with no self-contradiction?
- Safety & Listening Guidance (15%) — seizure-risk disclosure, headphone/format requirements, and clear guidance on when and how to listen.
- Value & Guarantee (20%) — price for a digital, instantly-delivered file, plus whether the stated refund window is real and consistent across the seller's own pages.
- Creator & Brand Credibility (20%) — a named, identifiable creator or production team, and a brand identity that stays consistent across the seller's own materials.
Two weights are deliberately different from the supplement rubric. Safety drops from 20% to 15%: audio-only entrainment carries a narrower, lower-variance risk profile than an ingested compound, there's no dose and no chemical interaction to weigh. Brand rises from 15% to 20%: a digital download has no FDA-registered facility, no GMP certification, no Certificate of Analysis, no physical manufacturing standard to check at all — a real, named creator and a consistent brand identity are almost the only verifiable trust signal left, so they carry more of the final answer.
Critical-failure rule (same structure, different trigger): Claim Consistency falling below the pass line caps the verdict at Conditional, the same way a hidden proprietary blend caps a supplement. For a supplement that's an undisclosed dose; for a digital audio product it's a genuinely unclear or self-contradictory claim about what the product actually delivers — the same structural failure, retargeted to what can actually go wrong here.
Where this came from: not invented from scratch. Grounded in a 2023 systematic review of 14 binaural-beat studies (5 supported the entrainment hypothesis, 8 contradicted it, 1 was mixed — PMC10198548), confirming the underlying science is genuinely heterogeneous, not settled either way, plus published digital-health evaluation frameworks that centre evidence, functional transparency, and safety over dosing.
Why the numbers moved when we switched: The Brain Song's score rose from 2.6/5 to 3.0/5 (its Safety and Value strengths now carry appropriate weight, and it lost a supplement-shaped Formula Transparency penalty that never applied to it). The Genius Song's score fell from 3.0/5 to 2.8/5 (its weaker theta-entrainment evidence base now carries full weight, and a real brand-naming inconsistency — the official sales page currently brands the product "The Genius Wave" — is now counted). Both moves are genuine outputs of a different, better-fitted rubric, not a shift applied to make either number more or less flattering.
The Research Desk
Who runs the 5-Point Filter, and how.
A filter is only as trustworthy as the person applying it. Every review on this site is scored by a named editor against the same documented method — so you can see exactly who stands behind each verdict and how it was reached.
Satwasheel Gharde
Founder & Head of Research, DigiproSpark
Founder of Smiley Social and Head of Research at DigiproSpark. Personally researches and edits every supplement review here using the 5-Point Quality Filter: transcribing the printed Supplement Facts label, sourcing peer-reviewed human evidence (PubMed / PMC / NIH), and checking clinical dosing before any verdict. Our reviews are evidence-and-label analyses, not medical advice; material safety points (drug interactions, contraindications) are written conservatively and flagged for a qualified clinician or pharmacist to confirm. Conflict-of-interest: pages may contain affiliate links that can earn a commission, which never changes a rating. Corrections & editorial contact: smileysocial@digiprospark.com. Read every review by Satwasheel Gharde →
Every ingredient claim is traced to human, peer-reviewed research on PubMed, PMC, and the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, never a brand's own whitepaper or a single testimonial.
Each active's amount on the label is compared to the dose used in the studies that support it. An ingredient dosed below its clinically studied range is scored as "fairy dusting," not a benefit.
Each citation is opened and read to confirm it actually says what we claim, then linked out in full (dofollow) so you can verify it too. The evidence is on the page, not hidden behind our word.
Known side effects, contraindications, and medication interactions are documented per ingredient — and a serious safety question holds a product back no matter how well it scores elsewhere.
The five checks become the 5-point score at the top of every review. Passes and failures alike go on the public record — including the products that failed.
This runs on every ingredient of every product we cover. Open any supplement review and the ingredient table shows the evidence rating and the linked source for each one.
Independence & disclosure
DigiproSpark earns affiliate commissions on some products, but a commission never changes a score. Products that fail are documented publicly. Read our full Affiliate Disclosure for details.
See the filter in action.
Every review on the site shows its 5-point scorecard up top.