Vannus assigns letter grades, tiers and caution flags to named companies, including grades as low as F. We do that from vendors’ own published documentation, and we get things wrong sometimes. This page is the route to fixing it. It is free, it does not require an account, and it does not require a lawyer.
Everything on this page happens by email. We do not run a submission form, an account, or a login for corrections, because a box on a public page is a box anyone can type into — and what gets published carries a named company’s name. Email is also how we confirm a reply genuinely came from the vendor. It is slower than a form and that is the point.
Or write to support@vannus.co in your own words. Anyone may report a factual error — you do not have to work for the vendor, because a correct source is a correct source whoever sends it. A published reply is different: that one is for the vendor, for the reason set out in section 2.
A factual error is something checkable: where your company is incorporated, who controls it, which model your product runs on, what your terms say about training on customer data, which certifications you hold, whether a compliance claim we attributed to you is real.
Send us the correct position and, where one exists, a link to where you publish it. We will:
The product name, a link to the Vannus page carrying the error, what the entry says, and what the correct position is. A link to your own documentation makes this fast, because a published source is what we grade from in the first place. If the correct position is not published anywhere, say so — we can record it as disclosed to us directly, and we will note that this is the basis.
Some disagreements are not factual. You may accept every fact in an entry and still think the conclusion is wrong, or that it misses context a customer should have. That is a legitimate position and we will not pretend our editorial judgment is beyond argument.
Who can send one. A published reply is reserved for someone authorised to speak for the vendor. That is not gatekeeping for its own sake: a statement published under your company’s name, next to your own grade, is one a competitor or a bad actor would have every reason to send in your place. We would rather be slow than let someone else put words in your mouth.
So we ask for one of the following, and nothing more onerous: a message from an email address at your company’s domain, a note on a page you control, or a reply from an address already listed on your site as a contact. If none of those is possible, write to us and we will find a workable way to confirm it.
What we do with it. You can send a statement of up to 200 words. Where it concerns the assessment of your product and we can confirm it came from you, we publish it on your tool’s page next to our grade, attributed to you and not edited for content — whether or not we agree with it, and whether or not it is flattering to us. We will not silently trim it, rebut it inside your own text, or bury it below the fold. We may add a short factual note of our own, clearly marked as ours and kept separate from yours.
When we will decline, and we will say why. We are the publisher of anything that appears here, so a reply is not published if it names or disparages a third party, contains material that is unlawful or that we have reason to believe is defamatory, is an advertisement or promotional copy rather than a response to our assessment, is off-topic, or where we cannot satisfy ourselves it genuinely came from the vendor. If we decline we tell you which of those applied. Declining a reply never affects your grade, in either direction — the two are decided by different things and we will not use one as leverage over the other.
Being straight about this is fairer to you than a process that quietly says no.
Many entries say not disclosed. That is not an accusation and not a penalty for secrecy — it means we could not find the answer published anywhere, so we declined to guess. We would rather record a gap than invent a fact about your company.
If you publish the answer and we missed it, that is a factual error and route 1 applies: send us the link and we will fix it. If you do not publish it and would like to disclose it directly, tell us — we will record it and note that it came from you rather than from a public source, so readers can judge it accordingly.
A small number of entries carry caution flags referring to publicly reported security incidents, ownership concerns, or sanctions exposure. These are held to a higher bar than ordinary grading:
If a correction request about a caution flag has not been answered within 5 business days, write to support@vannus.co with “ESCALATION” in the subject. It goes to the founder directly. Vannus is a small company; that is a real inbox, not a queue.
Vannus publishes assessments of AI vendors, drawn from those vendors’ published documentation and our own stated methodology. Grades and tiers are our editorial opinion based on disclosed facts; the facts are cited where a vendor publishes them and marked not disclosed where they do not.
We take accuracy seriously because it is the entire product. A verification company that gets a fact wrong and will not fix it has nothing left to sell. That is a stronger incentive than any legal threat, and it is why this page exists.
This page describes our editorial practice. It sits alongside, and does not limit, the pricing · Terms of Service — see §9.6 (editorial opinion and methodology) and §9.7 (DMCA notice and takedown).