Results, Comments, Star Claims, and Review

This document establishes formal requirements for Results, Comments, Star Claims, and Review for Good Taste Awards.

This document applies to the requirements, decisions, records, controls, and outputs expressly identified under Results, Comments, Star Claims, and Review. Award scope and exclusions are defined by GTA-STD-100; this document shall not create an additional award dimension. Operational prerequisites identified here affect assessment validity and never constitute product certification.

The Data and Publication Custodian owns GTA-STD-500; the Standards Authority approves it. formal verbs, defined terms, stable requirement identities, policy constants, and generated representations shall be interpreted under GTA-GOV-002, GTA-GOV-005, and the defined registers.

A product comment shall identify the individual product sensory experience, state supported strengths, state a material limitation where supported, avoid diagnosing production causes without evidence, and remain respectful irrespective of result. Each material proposition shall link to independent response observations or the defined discussion record. A no-star comment shall not imply failure on an excluded construct.

Comments shall be edited for clarity without changing evidential meaning. Minority observations may be retained where they are material and responsibly framed. The absence of unanimity shall not be concealed by a false consensus statement.

The ordinary award result is product_specific_noncomparative_recognition. It supports only exact_assessed_product_star_level, approved_star_meaning, evidence_supported_product_comment, accurate_method_description. It does not support product_family_or_range_extension, reformulation_or_market_equivalence, more_liked_or_preferred_claim, superiority_or_equivalence_claim, noninferiority_or_unsurpassed_claim, best_within_defined_comparator_set, rank_or_population_prevalence_claim.

A separate comparative substantiation plan shall be approved before participant exposure and shall define exact_claim_wording, primary_endpoint, relevant_population, comparator_set, product_and_sample_representation, sample_size_and_decision_risk, blind_presentation_and_order_design, analysis_method, unambiguous_decision_criteria, evidence_strength_and_challenge_risk. Selecting a claim, comparator, endpoint, threshold, subgroup, or analysis after examining ordinary award results is prohibited. An award-level difference, a comment difference, or a publication-index difference is not comparative evidence.

A procedural review may uphold, correct, recalculate, replace invalid evidence, authorize reassessment, amend a comment, correct publication, lower a result where a permitted validity ground is established, or withdraw recognition. It shall not order a preference re-vote merely because a party dislikes a valid outcome.

Conformity with Results, Comments, Star Claims, and Review requires evidence comprising the source evidence, defined decision, accountable role, and independent or automated verification. The record for each applicable GTA-STD-500 requirement shall permit reconstruction without relying on an unrecorded explanation.

Evidence created under GTA-STD-500 shall use stable identifiers, immutable event sequence numbers, and machine event timestamps. A correction shall be append-only. A nonconformity shall place the affected object in a non-releasable state until its consequence and confirmed disposition are recorded. Role combination remains subject to the mandatory separation rules.