Method · Open standard

How to grade a vendor against this standard How to grade

How to apply the Loyalty Transparency Standard 2026 to any vendor: what each verdict mark means, which documents count as a source, what to do when documents conflict, and a blank grading table to download.

Updated August 2026 — August 2026: this standard is only worth anything if somebody else can re-grade a vendor and arrive at the same result. This page sets out the whole method — the four verdict marks and what each one requires, which documents count as a source, the rule for handling documents that contradict each other, and a blank table to download.

Last updated: 2026-08-11 · v1.2

The four verdict marks

Every cell takes exactly one of four marks. The mark is decided by public documentation, not by an impression of the vendor.

Pass

Public documentation states the behaviour the criterion asks for, at the scope the criterion asks for — not narrower.

Qualifies: a vendor documentation page describing the member checking their own balance in an app or member page, with a screenshot.

Does not qualify: documentation that says only "manage member points" — that is a staff action, not a member action.

Partial pass

Present but limited: one channel where the criterion asks for several, conditional on the venue deploying something extra, or still requiring a staff action at one step.

Qualifies: members can redeem, but only at the counter, where the criterion also asks for the online channel.

Not a consolation mark. If documentation says nothing, the correct mark is unknown, not partial.

Fail

Public documentation states the capability is absent, or describes a mechanism that excludes the criterion (for example: enrolment only possible on the staff-facing POS terminal).

Qualifies: first-party documentation stating that only the cashier can create a member record.

Does not qualify: documentation that is silent. Absence of information is not evidence of absence.

Unknown

Public documentation does not state it. The cell is not counted as a failure, scores zero, and must be repeated in the open-questions list.

This is the default mark before documentation is found, and the mark to keep if none is found.

Never infer it from a competitor's page, a third-party comparison, or from "products in this category usually have it".

Which documents count as a source

A source must be public, published by the vendor itself, and reachable at a URL. The order below is the priority order when several sources cover the same cell.

Accepted

The vendor's own technical documentation or help centre.
Public feature and pricing pages on the vendor's website.
Product screenshots published by the vendor inside its own documentation.
Tutorial videos on the vendor's official channel.
Press releases or feature announcements issued by the vendor.

Not accepted

PR pieces or write-ups authored by a third party.
Reviews by resellers, affiliates or sales partners.
Statements by a salesperson, whether by phone or in a demo.
Private messages, private email, non-public internal documents.
Inference from a competitor's page or from a third-party comparison table.

Every graded cell must carry a URL and an access date. Public documentation changes over time; without the access date the cell cannot be re-checked.

When documents conflict

The common case is a marketing page saying one thing and the technical documentation another. Four rules, applied in order:

Prefer the document with the more recent update date.
If the dates match or are absent: prefer technical documentation and help-centre pages over marketing pages.
If the conflict stands: lower the cell to partial pass or unknown, and cite both sources so the reader can check.
A cell under conflict is never raised to pass — a pass requires one clear document that nothing else contradicts.

The six-step process

The whole process of grading one vendor. It takes an afternoon and needs no access to the vendor's system.

01
Pick the vendor and record the scope
Record the vendor name, the specific product being graded (many vendors ship several product lines), and the market it applies to. Grading the wrong product line is the most common error.
02
Collect the public documentation
Collect documents in the source priority order above. For each one, save the URL and the access date. Do not read third-party comparison tables at this step, to avoid importing their bias.
03
Grade each of the ten sub-criteria
Work through the ten cells in order: 1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 5. Each cell takes one of the four marks, a one-line explanation, and the URL of the document behind it. Cells with no document stay unknown.
04
Resolve conflicts
For cells where two documents disagree, apply the four conflict rules in order and record both sources.
05
Total the score
Pass = 1, partial = 0.5, fail = 0, unknown = 0. The maximum is 10. Publish the unknown-cell count next to the score — a vendor with many unknown cells may score higher once further documentation appears.
06
Publish with sources
Publish the table with a source per cell, the open-questions list, the grading date, and a contact route for vendors to send documentation. A score without sources cannot be checked and should not be published.

Blank grading table

The template ships with the ten sub-criteria columns, cells left empty, plus verdict, note, source and access-date fields for each cell. Use the CSV to grade in a spreadsheet, the JSON to process it with a script.

Download CSV template Download JSON template

Licensed CC BY 4.0 — use and republish freely, with attribution to heypeko.com. We do not ask that your results match ours.

Template columns

1a. Member sees balance
1b. Member sees tier
1c. Member sees voucher list
2a. Self-service redemption
2b. Redemption channels
3a. Messaging channel
3b. Trigger types
4a. Enrolment paths
4b. Integrity controls
5. Enrolment scope

Frequently asked questions

What if my result differs from yours?

Publish it with a source per cell. If your source is newer or more technical than ours, we will correct the table and date the correction in the changelog. This standard is built to be challenged, not agreed with.

Do I have to contact the vendor before grading?

Not required, but recommended. The transparent sequence is: grade from public documentation, send the table to the vendor, record the date sent and the date of any reply, then correct the cells where new documentation exists. A vendor that does not reply is recorded as not responded — a factual record, not a judgement.

Why doesn't an unknown cell count as a failure?

Because the two are different in kind: one says the documentation states it is absent, the other says we could not find documentation. Merging them penalises thin documentation rather than a thin product. Unknown cells score zero but are always listed separately so the reader can see the gap.

Can I add my own criteria?

Yes, as long as you state what you added and score it separately. Don't add criteria and then publish under this standard's name on a ten-point scale — two tables built that way are no longer comparable.

The published tables

The method on this page is the method used for the published tables — the SEA vendors on the English edition and the Vietnam vendors on the Vietnamese one. PEKO is graded in both.

Read the Loyalty Transparency Standard 2026