For vendors we grade

We publish grades on your company. Here is how to push back.

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.

The short version

A factual error gets corrected. If we have misstated something checkable about your company, tell us and we will fix it. We do not require you to argue for it.
A disagreement gets published. If you think our assessment is unfair rather than factually wrong, you can have a response of up to 200 words published on your tool’s page, unedited, next to our grade.
Neither costs anything, and neither depends on you being a customer, a partner, or an affiliate. We have never removed or raised a grade in exchange for money and we will not.

Request a correction →

Or write to support@vannus.co in your own words. Anyone may use this — you do not have to work for the vendor.

1. Correcting a factual error

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:

Acknowledge within 2 business days.
Check the claim against your published sources and ours.
Where you are right, correct the entry within 5 business days and re-run the grade. Grades are computed, so a corrected fact may move the grade up or down — we do not control the direction and will not pretend otherwise.
Tell you what we changed, and why, in writing.

What we need

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.

2. Replying to an assessment you think is unfair

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 judgement is beyond argument.

You can send a statement of up to 200 words. If it concerns the assessment of your product and is not defamatory, unlawful, or an advertisement, we will publish it on your tool’s page, unedited and attributed to you, alongside our grade — 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 if we disagree, clearly marked as ours and separate from yours.
You can update or withdraw it at any time.
We will not condition it on a commercial relationship of any kind.

3. What we will not do

Being straight about this is fairer to you than a process that quietly says no.

We will not remove an accurate entry on request. A grade you dislike is not a correction, and a catalog that vendors can edit themselves is worth nothing to the buyers it exists for.
We will not raise a grade in exchange for payment, advertising, an affiliate agreement, a partnership, or a review. No vendor can pay for a grade, a rank, or a place in the catalog. Affiliate relationships exist and are disclosed, and they are structurally separated from the scoring code — see our neutrality attestation.
We will not treat a legal threat as a substitute for evidence. Send the evidence and we will act on it quickly and for free. A demand letter with no factual correction in it gets the same answer as an email, more slowly.
We will not un-publish that a correction happened. Where a correction materially changes an entry, the page records that it was corrected and when.

4. Where “not disclosed” comes from

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.

5. Caution flags, breach and sanctions language

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:

They rest on a specific, citable public source — a regulator, a court record, an official list, the vendor’s own disclosure, or established reporting.
They describe what that source says. They are not an allegation of wrongdoing by us and are not a finding of fact by anyone but the source.
Where a matter is resolved, superseded, or was reported and later corrected, tell us and we will update or remove the flag. Stale bad news is a factual error like any other, and it is the error we most want to hear about.

Escalation

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.

6. Our standing position

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 Terms of Service — see §9.6 (editorial opinion and methodology) and §9.7 (DMCA notice and takedown).