Listing and Review Governance Policy
1. Why this policy is unusually strict
Most companies treat review-site governance as a marketing question. For Trooth it is an existential one.
Trooth's product exists because self-attestation is worthless and paid placement corrupts a rating. The company says, in its own published terms, that rank is never for sale and that what it publishes about a company comes from evidence rather than payment or tenure.
A company that says that and then buys a review, incentivises a testimonial, or pays for a leaderboard position on G2 has destroyed its own product's argument in a way no feature can repair. Competitors would only have to screenshot it.
This policy is therefore stricter than the review sites' own rules, and deliberately so. Where a practice is permitted by G2 and prohibited here, the prohibition stands.
2. The rule that cannot bend
Trooth does not pay for, incentivise, solicit-with-reward, draft, edit, suppress or trade any review, rating, ranking, badge or placement about itself, anywhere.
Specifically prohibited, regardless of whether the platform permits it:
| Practice | Common on | Prohibited here |
|---|---|---|
| Gift cards or credit for leaving a review | G2, Capterra | Yes |
| Vendor-run review drives with a prize | G2 | Yes |
| Paying a platform for a category placement or badge | G2, Capterra | Yes |
| Paying for lead generation tied to a rating position | Capterra | Yes |
| Drafting or editing a customer's review text | Everywhere | Yes |
| Requesting removal of a negative review that is accurate | Everywhere | Yes |
| Employee, contractor, investor or advisor reviews | Everywhere | Yes |
| Reviews from a related party without disclosure | Everywhere | Yes |
Permitted: a plain, unconditional invitation to a real customer to review Trooth honestly, sent once, with no reward, no draft text and no follow-up pressure. That is the whole of what is allowed.
3. Paid placement on a review platform
Review platforms sell placement. That is their business model and it is not dishonest of them.
Trooth does not buy it. Not category sponsorship, not a "leader" badge tied to spend, not a promoted position, not a lead package priced against a ranking.
Trooth may pay for a profile claim, a verified-vendor status, or a listing-management plan that does not affect ranking, review display order, or any comparative outcome. Where a platform bundles ranking influence into an otherwise neutral plan, Trooth does not buy that plan.
Where Trooth is offered a badge it did not earn through evidence, it declines and says why. Where that is not possible and a badge appears anyway, section 6 applies.
4. Claiming and maintaining a listing
| Requirement | Rule |
|---|---|
| Ownership | Every listing is claimed by Trooth, not by an agency, and the account is recorded in the Key-Person and Access Continuity Register |
| Accuracy | Description, categories, pricing and integrations match what is published on trooth.co |
| Claims | No claim on a listing that would fail check:claims on Trooth's own site |
| Language | The same rule as the product. Trooth witnesses and confirms. It does not certify, verify, guarantee or accredit |
| Screenshots | Real product surfaces only. No mockups presented as product |
| Metrics | No customer counts, uptime figures or other metrics unless they are true and reproducible |
| Review cadence | Every listing reviewed quarterly against trooth.co |
The language rule is the one that will be violated by accident. Review-site listing forms invite phrases like "verified security" and "certified compliance" because every other vendor uses them. Trooth's own build gate rejects those words on its own site, and a listing that uses them is publishing a claim the product refuses to make.
5. Responding to reviews
| Situation | Response |
|---|---|
| Positive review | Thank, briefly. No reciprocation of any kind |
| Critical and accurate | Respond publicly, acknowledge, say what changed or will change and by when. Do not defend |
| Critical and factually wrong | Respond publicly, correct the specific fact, provide the evidence, do not attack the reviewer |
| Critical and abusive or fake | Report through the platform's process. Never request removal of an accurate review |
| Review from a related party, discovered | Disclose it publicly in a response, and ask the platform to mark it |
Responses are published under a named person, not a brand voice.
A negative review is never asked to be removed if it is accurate. Trooth built a dispute process on exactly this principle for other companies, and the principle does not become optional when Trooth is the subject.
6. AWS Marketplace and software marketplaces
Marketplaces differ from review sites: they carry contractual and tax consequences and their listings are commercial instruments.
| Requirement | Rule |
|---|---|
| Terms | The marketplace listing incorporates Trooth's published Terms of Service and DPA, or a standard contract that does not conflict with them |
| Pricing | Matches the published pricing page. No marketplace-only claim of value |
| Support | The commitment stated on the listing matches the Support Terms |
| Security artefacts | Only documents that exist. The Trust Centre set is published; a SOC 2 report is not, and the listing does not imply one |
| Data | Marketplace-sourced customer data is subject to this estate's retention schedule like any other |
| Reviews | Section 2 applies unchanged |
The security-artefact row is where marketplace listings go wrong. A vendor questionnaire field labelled "SOC 2" with a yes/no answer invites a yes. The accurate answer today is that a SOC 2 programme exists with working documents and controls in place, and no completed report. That is what the listing says.
7. The register
Every listing where Trooth appears is recorded, whether Trooth created it or not. Directories create unclaimed listings, which Trooth knows better than most because it does it too.
| Field | Recorded |
|---|---|
| Platform | Name and URL |
| Status | Claimed, unclaimed, or disputed |
| Account owner | Named, and in the continuity register |
| Paid | Yes with the plan and what it buys, or no |
| Last reviewed | Date |
| Discrepancies | Anything not matching trooth.co |
The register is maintained in 07 - Branding alongside the press kit, reviewed quarterly, and is empty today because Trooth launched on 2 August 2026 and has not yet claimed a third-party listing. Starting the register before the first listing exists is the point: the first claim is made under this policy rather than being retro-fitted to it.
8. When a platform's rules conflict with this policy
Some platforms require a vendor to run a review campaign to appear in a category, or to buy a paid plan to respond to reviews.
Where a platform's requirement conflicts with section 2, Trooth does not participate in that category or that platform. Absence from a leaderboard is a cost Trooth can carry. A screenshot of Trooth buying a rating is not.
Where the conflict is discovered after a listing exists, the listing is withdrawn and the reason is recorded in the register.
9. Why this is published rather than internal
This policy is published, and that is the last rule.
A commitment not to buy reviews is worth nothing if only the person who could break it knows about it. Publishing it means a customer, a competitor or a journalist can check, and checking is the entire product.
Revision note. Revised 3 September 2026: plan vocabulary only, no change to what Trooth will and will not pay for.
Revised September 4, 2026: descriptions of retired features (composite figure, plan tiers, TruePass badge, Verified Inquiries) removed; the document now describes the witness record as published. Two sentences still used the retired composite as shorthand for what Trooth publishes; no commitment changed.