How We Trace — Transparency Scoring Methodology

The 7-Dimension
Rubric

Every brand score on Traced is built from the same framework: seven dimensions evaluated against primary sources — SEC filings, acquisition announcements, FDA letters, published COAs, and product labels. The goal is a complete picture of a brand, with emphasis on ownership structure and ingredient integrity — the two things that predict long-term transparency behavior better than marketing language.

Primary Sources Only
Every score dimension cites a primary source: an SEC filing, FDA letter, acquisition announcement, or lab report. No secondary aggregators. No press releases taken at face value.
Ownership First
Ownership structure predicts ingredient behavior. A brand owned by a private equity firm or conglomerate faces different incentives than a founder-controlled business — and the scores reflect that structural reality.
Living Database
Every scored dimension carries a “last verified” timestamp. Ownership changes, reformulations, and regulatory actions update scores. Accuracy is a maintenance commitment, not a one-time task.
The Seven Dimensions
1
Ownership Disclosure
Who holds the equity, and what does that mean for the formula?
Private equity, conglomerate, VC-backed, or founder-led. Strategic conflicts between parent portfolio and brand mission. Post-acquisition behavior vs. pre-acquisition positioning. This is the spine of the rubric — ownership structure is the single most predictive variable for long-term ingredient and transparency behavior.
2
Ingredient Disclosure
Are individual ingredients and sourcing claims fully published?
Full ingredient transparency vs. proprietary blend concealment. Sourcing origin claims (farm-to-bar, grass-fed, direct-trade) vs. what the supply chain can actually verify. Proprietary blend analysis — what’s hidden and what that concealment costs the consumer in real terms.
3
Marketing-Formula Alignment
Do front-of-pack claims match what’s in the formula?
Does disclosed dosing match clinical thresholds for the claims made? Sub-clinical dosing with disclosed ingredients is still a transparency failure. Label claim accuracy: active lawsuits, FDA warning letters, class action history, ingredient substitution. The gap between what a brand says it does and what the formula can actually do.
4
Scientific Substantiation
Has an independent party verified the claims?
NSF, Informed Sport, USP, B Corp, Fairtrade, organic certification. Certification vs. marketing claim — these are very different things. Batch-level COAs vs. periodic audits vs. no testing. For food: farm-visit verification, co-op governance, worker ownership structures that create structural transparency incentives.
5
Risk Disclosure
What has the regulatory record revealed that the marketing didn’t?
FDA warning letters, FTC consent orders, class action settlement history, documented formula changes under regulatory pressure. These are primary sources that reveal the gap between what a brand claims and what regulators found when they looked closely. A clean regulatory record is a genuine positive signal.
6
Safety Transparency
Are known risks disclosed, and has the brand responded to new evidence?
Known ingredient risks disclosed proactively vs. defended until legally required to change. Response to emerging research (e.g., erythritol cardiovascular data, PFAS in packaging, TBHQ in products banned elsewhere). Heavy metals testing results published vs. withheld. Reformulation honesty when formulas change.
7
Founder Alignment
Is the founding mission still present in current business behavior?
Is original leadership still present? Does what the brand claims to do match what the formula does? Paid influencer structure, proprietary science trademarking, health halo positioning that outpaces evidence. Post-acquisition drift: does the brand’s current behavior match the values used to justify its premium pricing?
High Transparency
5–7 green dimensions
Ingredient and supply chain transparency is high. Ownership structure does not create conflicts with the brand’s stated mission. May have minor gaps — e.g., no third-party certification — but no active misleading claims and no ownership conflicts that compromise the formula. Green does not mean perfect; it means no documented structural transparency failures.
Mixed Transparency
Mixed picture
Typically: strong ingredient story with conglomerate ownership, or strong ownership with dose opacity. One or two “watch condition active” dimensions means something specific is worth monitoring — a pending regulatory action, a recent acquisition, or a sourcing claim that can’t be verified at the level the marketing implies. Yellow means: verify before assuming.
Low Transparency
3+ red dimensions or 1 critical failure
Three or more red dimensions, or one critical failure: active labeling lawsuit, documented formula adulteration under conglomerate ownership, broken supply chain pledges, or systemic proprietary blend concealment. Red does not mean the product is unsafe — it means the transparency infrastructure is inadequate relative to what the brand claims.
Category-Specific Sub-Criteria

The 7 dimensions apply universally. These sub-criteria adapt what each dimension measures based on what matters in that category — without changing the scoring framework itself.

Supplements & Protein (Category-specific)
✓
Dim 2 — Ingredient Disclosure: Is the protein source single-ingredient (isolate) or a blend? Are all amino acids and additives individually listed vs. hidden in a proprietary matrix?
✓
Dim 3 — Formula vs. Marketing: Do disclosed doses of each ingredient meet clinically-studied thresholds? Under-dosed active ingredients with disclosed amounts is still a marketing accuracy failure.
●
Dim 4 — Third-Party Verification: NSF Certified for Sport or Informed Sport are the gold standards — batch-level testing. USP is secondary. No certification with published COAs is better than certification without them.
●
Dim 5 — Regulatory Record: Heavy metals testing results (Consumer Reports 2010, 2023 follow-ups), FDA warning letters about naming, FTC reviews of advertising claims.
Chocolate & Confectionery (Category-specific)
✓
Dim 1 — Ownership: Conglomerate-owned chocolate brands face structural incentives to substitute cocoa butter (expensive) with PGPR and compound coatings. This is documented pattern, not speculation.
✓
Dim 2 — Ingredient Disclosure: Cacao origin: commodity pool vs. direct farm sourcing. Farm names, harvest dates, and prices paid published vs. “ethically sourced” marketing without primary source.
●
Dim 3 — Formula vs. Marketing: “Milk chocolate” vs. “chocolate candy” vs. “compound coating” on label. Same brand name, materially different product — this is the Reese’s pattern.
●
Dim 5 — Regulatory: West Africa child labor audit history (Hershey, Mondelez). Supply chain pledges made vs. supply chain pledges met vs. pledges never independently verified.
Diet / Functional Food Brands (Category-specific)
●
Dim 6 — Safety Transparency: Emerging research on novel sweeteners (erythritol, allulose, monk fruit) — has the brand proactively disclosed risks or defended the sweetener until a regulatory event forced change?
●
Dim 3 — Formula vs. Marketing: Calorie reduction mechanism explained vs. “guilt free” positioning that implies absence of tradeoffs. Functional claims with no clinical backing.
✓
Dim 7 — Founder Alignment: PE acquisition + maintained “wellness brand” positioning is the Halo Top pattern. We score the gap between founding positioning and post-acquisition business behavior explicitly.
Food Brands (Acquired “Natural” Category)
●
Dim 1 — Ownership: The Annie’s pattern: natural/organic brand acquired by legacy conglomerate at premium, brand identity preserved while parent company’s supply chain economics apply to sourcing decisions.
●
Dim 7 — Founder Alignment: Is the founder still involved? Has the brand’s sourcing mission been operationalized at conglomerate scale or merely stated as marketing positioning?
✓
Dim 4 — Third-Party Verification: B Corp status pre vs. post acquisition. Organic certification renewal under new ownership. These are verifiable continuity signals.
How a Score Gets Built
01
Source Collection
Primary sources only, no press releases
Every scored dimension is anchored to a primary source. SEC filings for ownership changes. FDA FOIA records for warning letters. Court documents for class actions. Acquisition press releases are noted but not treated as evidence — the filing is. Ingredient labels are sourced from purchased products and cross-referenced with retailer listings and EU labels where available.
02
Dimension Scoring
Green / Yellow / Red per dimension
Each of the 7 dimensions is scored Green, Yellow, or Red against documented evidence. Green = transparent, no conflicts found. Yellow = partial disclosure, watch condition active, or evidence is mixed. Red = documented transparency failure, active legal record, or structural conflict confirmed. Scores are editorial judgments — we explain the reasoning, not just the color.
03
Weighting Logic
Ownership and ingredient integrity carry spine weight
Dimensions 1 (Ownership) and 2 (Ingredient Disclosure) are the structural spine of the score. A brand that is Red on both is in a structurally different position than a brand that is Red on Founder Alignment alone. The spectrum position reflects a blend, but the editorial narrative always explains which dimensions are driving the overall placement and why.
Source Types We Cite
Ownership
SEC / Corporate Filings
8-K acquisition filings, S-1 prospectuses, proxy statements, EDGAR ownership records, Companies House filings (UK/EU)
Regulatory
FDA / FTC Primary Records
FDA warning letters (FOIA database), FTC consent orders, USDA organic certification records, EU/UK HPRA enforcement actions
Product
Labels & COAs
Purchased product labels, Certificate of Analysis documents published by brand, NSF/Informed Sport test result databases, EU Nutrition Declaration requirements
Legal
Court & Settlement Records
PACER court filings, class action settlement databases, state AG enforcement actions, arbitration outcomes where publicly disclosed
What This Methodology Does Not Do
Known Limitations — Read Before Citing Traced Scores
01 Not a product safety rating. A Red score means inadequate transparency infrastructure, not that the product is unsafe to consume. We are documenting disclosure failures, not issuing health warnings. Consult healthcare providers for health decisions.
02 Scores lag ownership changes. Acquisitions and reformulations happen faster than we can update scores. Every score carries a Last Verified timestamp — treat scores older than 6 months with additional skepticism and check the timestamp before citing.
03 Editorial judgment is involved. Dimension scoring requires judgment calls about which evidence is dispositive. We document our reasoning in each brand profile. If you believe a score is wrong, cite the primary source you believe we missed — we will review it. Contact: [email protected]
04 Category coverage is not uniform. Supplements have been scored across 20 brands. Chocolate across 11. Other categories are in progress. Do not treat absence from Traced as a positive signal — it means we haven’t gotten there yet.
Methodology Last Updated
Framework version v2.1 — February 2026
Supplements sub-criteria February 2026
Chocolate sub-criteria February 2026
Diet / functional food February 2026
Acquired natural food February 2026