Best for
- Readers auditing a recommendation
- Vendors submitting a correction
- Future affiliate reviewers
Watch for
- Vendor claims are not neutral tests
- Prices change by region
- Compatibility cannot be generalized
Evidence hierarchy
Current manuals, official product specifications, regulatory documents, vendor support tables and material SDS/TDS establish facts. A vendor performance claim stays attributed. Conflicting or missing evidence remains visible instead of being averaged into certainty.
Each machine record separates system class, embedded source, wavelength/type, optical power, work area, enclosure, extraction, price region, warranty and verified date.
Recommendation logic
The Finder applies hard gates before scoring: material/process evidence, physical fit, region/electrical availability, required controls and installed budget. Survivors are assessed for workflow, breadth, format, evidence, support and cost. Affiliate status is stored separately and cannot enter the function.
Outputs are Strong, Good, Conditional or No qualifying match—not artificial percentages.
Corrections and updates
Commercial records show the last verified date. A substantive model, price, warranty, safety or compatibility change should update the central record and every dependent page. Corrections are logged without pretending that an old publication date is new.
Decision criteria
Primary and authoritative sources
A source link supports the stated fact; it is not an endorsement.