Appeal an input, not a score.
Our methodology scores products from published, dated data. If one of those inputs is wrong, tell us the input, the value you believe is correct, and a public source that shows it — we re-check it and the rubric does the rest. We don't adjust scores directly; nobody here, and no partner, gets a discretionary bump.
What we need
- — The specific input (a rate, a fee, an eligibility floor — one thing)
- — The value you believe is correct
- — A public source URL showing it — not a private rate sheet or a phone call
We acknowledge conforming appeals within 2 business days and adjudicate within 10 business days (one published extension allowed). Received and resolved dates are both public, so a missed SLA is visible in the log, not just to us.
Possible outcomes
-
Upheld
The public source shows the correct value differs from our observation. We correct the input; the score recomputes.
-
Upheld as refresh
The value changed after we observed it — our stamp was right when made. Logged as an early re-observation, not an error.
-
Declined
The source doesn't show the claimed value, or isn't public and verifiable.
-
Out of scope
Methodology feedback or a "the score should be higher" ask, not an input dispute — there's no discretionary step to grant that here.
No appeals filed yet. Conforming appeals appear on this page — reverse-chronological, permanent — with received date, disputed input, and outcome once resolved.
Not a data dispute — a general question, or feedback on how we weight factors? Use contact instead; rubric feedback is considered at versioned reviews, not per-product.