How FundedHub evaluates prop firms

FundedHub separates official-source evidence, inferred values, user reports, internal scoring and commercial relationships. A value is not verified merely because it appears in the database or was extracted by AI.

Methodology version EVIDENCE_FIRST_V1 · updated 12 August 2026

SOURCE Official page firm.com/terms the firm's own site, as it is live SNAPSHOT Dated capture 12 Aug 2026 · 14:02 UTC final url, hash and exact excerpt stored HUMAN REVIEW Editor decides accept · reject pending until a person decides accepted rejected RULE Max daily drawdown 4% · verified published with its snapshot attached Not accepted stays pending · never shown as verified unknown facts remain open, no defaults AI can propose a value. Only a person can make it a published rule.

Every published rule has a dated snapshot behind it and a person in front of it.

Evidence hierarchy

What counts as proof, from strongest to weakest.

01

Official primary source

The firm's own current website, terms, pricing page, FAQ or public checkout. Facts store the final URL, capture time, hash and exact excerpt or locator.

02

Independent primary record

A registry, regulator or official platform or ecosystem source can corroborate identity or availability where relevant.

03

Explicit inference

A bounded assumption, shown as inferred, unverified and non-canonical. It never becomes verified merely through repetition.

04

Discovery hint

Search results, directories and competitor sites can identify a candidate or a gap. They are not imported as factual evidence.

The record behind a verified value

A value is not verified because it sits in the database, and not because AI extracted it. Verified means the evidence record exists: the final URL, the capture time, a content hash and the exact excerpt or locator, plus the review that accepted it.

Inferred values are shown as inferred, unverified and non-canonical. Repetition does not promote them, and unknown facts stay open instead of receiving defaults.

EVIDENCE RECORD VERIFIED Max daily drawdown · 4% source firm.com/faq · final url captured 12 Aug 2026 · 14:02 UTC hash sha256 · 9f3a…41c1 excerpt “daily drawdown: 4%” · §3.1 review accepted · by an editor INFERRED A bounded assumption unverified · non-canonical no url · no hash · no excerpt repetition never promotes it Verified is not a confidence level. It is a record you can open: url, time, hash, excerpt, reviewer.

If the record does not exist, the value is not called verified.

From candidate to public page

Five gates between a proposed company and a page in the sitemap.

1

Candidate

A company name and official domain are proposed. No public status is granted.

2

Research

Public pages are captured and proposed values enter the evidence queue as pending.

3

Review

Evidence is accepted or rejected. Unknown facts remain open instead of receiving defaults.

4

Publication gate

Required fields, programs, sources and unresolved change signals are evaluated before publication.

5

Index gate

Only canonical pages with unique utility and eligible evidence enter the sitemap.

Event-driven freshness

FundedHub does not declare evidence stale merely because seven days passed. An unchanged source remains valid without a cosmetic recurring crawl.

Change signals from monitored sources or incoming mail open a revalidation task. While that task is active or failed, affected facts are not treated as fresh.

Ratings, reviews and commercial relationships

FundedHub rating

An internal score, not a Trustpilot rating and not automatically a user aggregate. It must not be emitted as user-review structured data.

Third-party ratings

Displayed only with their origin and current evidence. A marketing statement from a firm is not substituted for the independent value.

User reports

Clearly separated from team-reviewed evidence and shown with their moderation state.

Affiliate, Partner and Sponsor

Commercial statuses are disclosed and cannot be assigned by the research model. They must not convert an unsupported factual claim into a verified one.

Automation and editorial responsibility

AI may help find, extract or draft content, but the generation method and editorial status are independent records. Reviewed AI-assisted content identifies the responsible editor and review date. Pending content is disclosed as pending, and research articles cannot enter the sitemap without a source manifest and recorded review.

Read the AI and Article 50 transparency policy