The unit is a lot, not a strain
Every review is attached to a producer, lot identifier, package date when available, and review date. A name can remain familiar while genetics, cultivation, and handling change. The site therefore does not turn one lot report into a claim about every product sold under the same cultivar name.
Claim strength: Published evidence
Genetic testing has found that commercial cannabis samples sharing a strain name can be genetically inconsistent. The source stays attached to that statement: Schwabe and McGlaughlin, Journal of Cannabis Research (2019).
Three visible claim states
The label is written into the text, not communicated by color alone.
| Visible label | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Claim strength: Published evidence | A statement tied to a linked paper, dataset, statute, rule, bulletin, or agency page. |
| Claim strength: Industry tradition | A practice or interpretation common in the trade but not established here as research evidence. |
| Claim strength: Reviewer experience — one person, one lot | A person's report about the identified lot at the recorded dose and method. |
Separate reports, never a pre-averaged verdict
Each reviewer report is its own <article class="reviewer-report"> in the HTML. If two reviewers disagree, both reports and their scores remain visible. The spread is part of the result; the site does not replace it with a mean or consensus score.
Evidence and illustration are different things
Product photographs, label photographs, and linked source documents can establish facts within their limits. Generated illustrations establish none. Every generated illustration carries a visible disclosure beside it.
Estate and carried brands
An estate operation grows what it sells. A carried brand is product grown by someone else and sold by the retailer. Producer descriptions state which relationship applies rather than assuming that everything on one shelf came from one grow.
Medical information boundary
Dosing, timing, symptom, and interaction material is informational, not medical advice. A reviewer's experience remains attributed to that reviewer. General empirical claims link to their source, and summaries should carry those citations.