Editorial Policy
This page explains how CarbonMeld produces scores, how the service is funded, and why commercial relationships do not influence individual project scores.
What CarbonMeld is
CarbonMeld is an automated analysis system. Scores are generated by a standardized LLM-based pipeline applied to public registry documents and marketplace data. No human editorial team assigns scores manually on a case-by-case basis.
Revenue model
CarbonMeld has one revenue stream: the Premium 30-day pass, which gives buyers paid access to full score breakdowns, registry documents, PDF reports, the API and the portfolio tools. It is disclosed here. Document submission and pipeline re-runs are free of charge for all project owners.
Blog articles and AI-generated content
Articles on the CarbonMeld blog are produced by the same automated editorial system: they are drafted with AI assistance — in many cases entirely by AI — starting from publicly available sources, which are cited in each article. Articles are market analysis and commentary, not investment advice. Despite source checks, automated writing can contain errors or outdated figures: if you spot one, write to [email protected] and we will correct it.
Why document submission does not influence the score
Document submission is free. Submitted documents are processed by the same standardized pipeline applied to all projects. Submitting documentation does not guarantee a positive score, a minimum score, or publication. The score is determined solely by the methodology applied to the submitted documentation.
Why paid access does not influence the score
Premium passes pay for access to data and reports, not for influence. Pass holders have no visibility into or control over methodology criteria, individual scores, or publication decisions. A project's score is identical whether or not its owner — or anyone else — has bought a pass.
Why complimentary access does not influence the score
CarbonMeld sometimes gives project developers free access to the premium analysis of their own project, so that owners can see exactly what the analysis found. This courtesy does not change how the project is scored: the score comes from the same standardized pipeline whether or not the owner has access, and owners can influence it only by submitting documents, which are analyzed like any other evidence.
Metadata correction (free)
Project owners may request corrections to factual metadata errors (name, country, marketplace link, registry URL). Metadata corrections are processed manually and do not modify the score. Use the contact form on each project page or email [email protected] with subject [Metadata Error].
Disputes and corrections
Anyone can contest a rating from the project page (“Contest this rating”). A dispute must point to a public source: a page or document published on the official registry. CarbonMeld scores projects only from documents published on the official registries and does not accept documents sent to it directly. If the dispute reports a registry document that the analysis has not used, the project’s registry documents are re-checked automatically within 48 hours, and the project is re-scored only if the registry has published new documents. Other disputes, such as a document read incorrectly or a criterion applied wrongly, are reviewed by a person against the public documents. Every dispute receives a reference number and an answer within 30 days, and confirmed errors are corrected on the project page. The outcome depends only on the methodology applied to the public documents: a dispute does not guarantee a different score.
System limitations
Scores depend on the quality and availability of public documentation. Projects with limited public documentation receive lower confidence ratings. CarbonMeld is not a registry, certification body, or investment advisor. Scores are outputs of an automated methodology and should be interpreted accordingly.
See also: Methodology · About the System