Tool Documents

What We Cannot Check

This site tells readers to establish what a source can and cannot know. The same question applies here, and the answer is a list rather than a disclaimer.

Reviewed August 9, 2026.

The seven

Whether any product is good. Nothing here is installed, run at volume, or used by a team for six months. Usability, speed, reliability and support quality are outside what a desk can establish, and any site claiming otherwise from a desk is describing marketing material. For a separate operational reference from Monitask, see this resource.

Current prices. They change quarterly. Every figure and range on this site carries a date and is a description of a moment.

What any specific contract says. Terms differ by customer, by negotiation and by region. This site describes what to look for, and your agreement is the document.

For broader context, see Forbes.

Whether the law applies to you. The provisions cited are summarised from published text; jurisdiction, sector and entity type determine what actually binds you, and none of that is legal advice.

Whether a vendor's answers are true. The twelve questions produce written answers, and this site cannot verify any of them — that is what putting them in the agreement is for.

How a category will look in two years. Products move and so do the boundaries between them.

And whether the right answer is a tool at all. Sometimes it is not, and that judgement needs your process rather than a general principle.

What it can do

Describe what is checkable and how, which does not depend on any product.

Summarise published provisions with their references, which anybody can verify.

Name the structural pressures — affiliate ordering, lock-in design, feature volatility — which follow from how the market is funded rather than from testing anything.

And supply the questions, which is the actual output of this site. Twelve to a vendor, a handful to yourself.

Why the list is published

Because the alternative is implying more.

A comparison site that never states its limits is claiming, by omission, to have tested things. Most of the genre does exactly that, and the omission is what makes a table of ticks look like evidence.

And because it makes the site usable. A reader who knows which parts are structural argument and which are verified fact can weight them. One given uniform confidence cannot, and will be wrong in a direction they cannot predict.

The correction this invites

If something here is wrong, that is the most useful message this site receives.

Particularly: a legal provision misdescribed, a range that does not match practice, or a claim that only works in some interested party's favour.

Corrections are logged with the date and what changed.

The short version