Supersedes v1. v1's defect was that four of eight gates were written so the plan passed by construction. v2 fixes that, but an honest version of the fix requires admitting a distinction v2.0 of this document blurred:
gate is failing the law. (G1 fee rules, G4, G5, G6, G7, G8's notice/consent/geofence elements, G6, G9's identity-in-ad-unit rule, G10's editing rule, G13's accuracy elements.)
expensive; the pass condition is the conservative design chosen to avoid litigating it. Reasonable people can disagree, and a reviewer may argue a Type R gate is stricter than the law requires. (G1's listing restriction, G2, G3, G8's no-sale/no-tracker rules, G9's profile-page rule, G11, G13's suppression element, G14.)
G2 and G9 remain circular and the label does not cure it. Their pass conditions restate the plan's own architecture; the authorities establish that the risk is expensive, not that this design defeats it. Vrdolyak in fact blessed sponsored placement on a non-payer's profile page, so G9's prohibition is stricter than the case law requires. Both are kept because the mandate is risk minimization and both are cheap — but a reviewer applying this framework under a growth mandate should feel free to reject them.
Marking the type is the point. A Type R gate is a choice to avoid a fight, and under a different mandate it would be scored differently. Presenting one as if the statute compelled it is how a framework flatters its author.
Objective this instrument now scores against: minimum litigation risk, not maximum viability. The GO bar is therefore 80, raised from 75. A plan that merely survives is not good enough when the stated goal is to stay out of court.
Structure. Part A: fourteen binary gates, each citing authority and typed A/R/I below. Any FAIL blocks the build. Part B: ten weighted dimensions, 100 points, bar 80.
Verdicts: GO (all gates pass, ≥80) · CONDITIONAL GO (all gates pass, 70–79) · NO-GO (any gate fails, or <70).
Evidence rule. Every result cites a specific section of the plan. A mechanism counts; an intention does not. "We will be careful about X" scores as if X were absent.
| # | Gate | Authority | Passes when |
|---|---|---|---|
| G1 | Accreditation & fee law | 38 CFR 14.629, 14.636; 38 U.S.C. 5901, 5904 | Only VA-accredited attorneys, claims agents and VSO representatives are listed as able to assist; fee rules (post-decision, ≤20% presumed) are stated accurately; no revenue accrues from an entity charging unlawfully |
| G2 | Referral-service line | Cal. B&P §6155 + §6156.5 (SB 37, 2025 — private action, $5,000–$100,000/violation + fees); Jackson v. LegalMatch (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 760; Tex. Occ. Code ch. 952 + Tex. Ethics Op. 573; Fla. Bar R. 4-7.22; Ohio Gov.Bar R. XVI; RCW 2.48.180 | Open enrollment (no caps, panels, waitlists, exclusivity); search returns all matching firms by name; the consumer selects a named firm before any contact; the contact form delivers only to that firm; no intake questionnaire is distributed to a filtered set |
| G3 | Compensation structure | ABA Model Rules 5.4(a), 7.2(b); NJ ACPE Op. 741; NY Ops. 1132/1294; Fla. Ethics Op. 18-1; IL RPC 7.2(c)(8); Tex. Penal §38.12; La. R.S. 37:219 | Flat, retention-independent pricing only. No percentage of fees, no per-retention, per-signed-case, per-outcome or success-based component. No per-lead pricing |
| G4 | Paid-placement disclosure | FTC Act §5 and the Enforcement Policy Statement on Deceptively Formatted Advertisements (the operative authority); In re LendEDU (FTC 2020); 16 CFR §465.1(c) supplies the enforceable definition of "clear and conspicuous," not the labeling duty itself | Each paid unit labeled Sponsored, unavoidable, visually distinct; no "best/top/objective/screened/vetted/independently ranked" framing; no first-party rating or ordering influenced by payment |
| G5 | Review integrity | 16 CFR Part 465 §§.2, .4, .5, .7 (eff. 21 Oct 2024); FTC Act §5(m)(1)(A) — $53,088/violation (2025 level carried into 2026 by OMB M-26-11) | No incentivized reviews; insider reviews blocked; sentiment-blind published moderation applied identically to paying and non-paying firms; review text never edited |
| G6 | Third-party data licence | Google Maps Platform Service Specific Terms §14.3; Maps attribution policy | Google ratings/reviews/counts live-served, never persisted anywhere — DB, cache, CDN, logs or export; only place_id (indefinite) and lat/long (≤30 days) stored; attribution present; visually segregated; never blended into a composite |
| G7 | Substantiated identity claims | Vendor documentation: ID.me community payload; SheerID published FAQ; VA VSHE service_history.read | Every badge shown is backed by a source that actually returns that attribute. No "honorable discharge" claim on an affiliation-only integration |
| G8 | Consumer health data | RCW 19.373 (MHMD — private right of action via RCW 19.86.090: treble to $25,000 plus attorney's fees); NV SB 370; Cal. Civ. Code §1798.140(ae), §1798.121; FTC §5 (GoodRx, BetterHelp, Cerebral) | Standalone consumer-health-data notice linked from the homepage; separate opt-in to collect and to share; deletion cascading to backups with downstream notification; appeal path naming the AG; no sale or sharing of health data; no third-party trackers on authenticated or review pages; no geofencing near VA medical facilities |
| G9 | Right of publicity | 765 ILCS 1075 (IRPA — $1,000 statutory minimum per violation + fees); Cal. Civ. Code §3344; Ohio R.C. 2741; Ind. Code 32-36-1; Vrdolyak v. Avvo (N.D. Ill. 2016); Lukis v. Whitepages (N.D. Ill. 2020) | A listed professional's name, photo or identity never appears inside an ad unit, in copy selling subscriptions, or in a paywalled teaser; no sponsored competitor placement on a non-paying professional's own profile page; no paid tier whose benefit is removing competitors' ads |
| G10 | Platform speech posture | 47 U.S.C. §230 and its limits (Roommates.com, Barnes v. Yahoo!, Lukis); Browne v. Avvo; Davis v. Avvo; state anti-SLAPP / UPEPA | Review text never edited or co-authored; the platform's own rating disclosed as opinion with published, pay-neutral methodology; moderation policies drafted as discretionary, not promissory; notice-and-response process exists and is documented |
| G11 | Legal-basis prerequisites | VA production-access requirements; MHMD §.020; insurance underwriting norms | Published ToS, general privacy policy, standalone health-data notice, documented breach process, retention/deletion schedule, and media/multimedia E&O bound — all before any identity integration or public listing goes live |
| G12 | Directive compliance (Type I — internal, not law) | hi.jbnx.io v35 | claim → boot → work → verify live → usage + health band → status → release; one billable per claim; gated-lane PR then chat approval; documents via /api/1099/document with project_slug |
| G13 | Third-party accuracy, defamation & trademark | Lanham Act §43(a); 765 ILCS 1075; state defamation law; Browne v. Avvo, Davis v. Avvo | Every factual claim made about a listed professional is sourced and dated; roster staleness downgrades the badge; third-party ratings render only where the underlying listing's ownership is verified; a correction/takedown path exists for the named professional; free suppression on request; no third-party org's logo or mark reproduced beside a paid product |
| G14 | Written outside-counsel sign-off | — (Type R — the plan's own highest-leverage control) | A written opinion, scoped to the specific contested question and obtained before the dependent phase ships, exists for each jurisdiction whose exposure is (a) uncapped or class-scale and (b) resting on an unconstrued authority — currently California §6155/§6156.5, Washington MHMD, Illinois IRPA, and Florida Bar R. 4-7.22 |
A gate is PASS, FAIL, or N/A (phase explicitly deferred behind a stated gate).
Why G13 and G14 exist. An independent review of v2.0 observed that the most likely actual lawsuit — a listed professional suing over something the site says about them — was measured only inside a 7-point dimension and could not fail anything, and that the plan named written counsel review as its highest-leverage control while the framework never required it. Both are now gates.
| Dim | Weight | Scores |
|---|---|---|
| D1 Legal & regulatory defensibility | 16 | Accreditation/fee model correctness; per-state variation handled as data not prose; risk engineered out rather than disclosed |
| D2 Veteran outcome & trust | 14 | Free VSO path privileged in layout; fee rules explained at the decision point; no dark patterns; the site answers "who should I choose," not "who paid us" |
| D3 Monetization integrity | 12 | Defensible in the most restrictive state, not the average one; payment structurally separated from ranking, ratings and reviews |
| D4 Data & identity architecture | 10 | PII minimization; vendor choice matches the claim made; schema encodes licence constraints; RLS read/write scope agreement |
| D5 Review integrity | 10 | Every 16 CFR 465 clause has a named mechanism; appeal path; audit trail; "clearly false" defined |
| D6 Delivery feasibility | 8 | Fit to the estate; phase sizing; external approvals off the critical path; hidden work items surfaced |
| D7 Directive & ops compliance | 5 | Claim loop, billing, usage band, gated lane, verification evidence format |
| D8 Commercial viability | 8 | Cold-start liquidity; seeding cost; pricing uncertainty named honestly |
| D9 Privacy & health data | 10 | MHMD/SB 370/CCPA obligations as built artifacts; tracker posture; retention and deletion; consent logging |
| D10 Third-party accuracy & defamation | 7 | Accuracy of claims made about listed professionals; roster staleness; correction and takedown path; insurance |
Band guidance — expressed as a fraction of the dimension's weight, so it produces a number rather than a mood. v2.0's bands ("top decile / upper-middle") mapped to no point values, which made any total between roughly 65 and 85 defensible from identical evidence.
| Band | Fraction of weight | Test |
|---|---|---|
| 4 — Verified | 0.86–1.00 | Mechanism specified concretely and a named verification test exists in the plan's verification section |
| 3 — Specified | 0.66–0.85 | Mechanism specified concretely; verification vague or absent |
| 2 — Policy | 0.31–0.65 | Stated as intent or policy; no mechanism |
| 1 — Absent | 0.00–0.30 | Missing, wrong, or contradicted elsewhere in the plan |
Bands are contiguous by design — v2.0 left unreachable gaps between them.
Round to the nearest whole point. A dimension containing an internal contradiction cannot score above band 2 regardless of how much else is present.
Mandate weighting. D7 (5) and D8 (8) do not measure litigation risk. Under the stated risk-minimizing mandate, report the litigation-risk subtotal out of 87 alongside the total out of 100, and note if the two verdicts diverge. If a plan clears 80 only because of D7 and D8, it has not met the mandate.
| Dim | Weight | Score | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| D1 Legal & regulatory | 16 | ||
| D2 Veteran outcome | 14 | ||
| D3 Monetization integrity | 12 | ||
| D4 Data & identity | 10 | ||
| D5 Review integrity | 10 | ||
| D6 Delivery feasibility | 8 | ||
| D7 Directive & ops | 5 | ||
| D8 Commercial viability | 8 | ||
| D9 Privacy & health data | 10 | ||
| D10 Accuracy & defamation | 7 | ||
| Total | 100 | Bar: 80 |
Stated so the instrument can be challenged rather than trusted.
star ratings of named professionals will receive demand letters; the achievable goal is that every claim is defensible, cheap to defeat, and insured. Gates G9 and G10 measure defensibility, not immunity.
against the rendered live site before launch — the FTC, Google and a plaintiff evaluate what renders, not what was specified.
MHMD has no published merits ruling as of August 2026. Gates G2 and G8 are therefore calibrated to the statutory text, which is the conservative reading.
the right number. Changing the mandate should change the bar, explicitly.
score 90.