RatEx42 Rating Methodology v1.0

Effective date: 5 January 2026
Applies to: All RatEx42 provider/platform profiles and ratings (“R42 Risk Rating”)
Last updated: 5 January 2026

1) What RatEx42 is (and what it isn’t)

RatEx42 (“R42”) is a risk-rating and comparability platform for cyberfinance providers, payment enablers, and high-risk digital services. Our goal is to help users, partners, and compliance teams answer a practical question:

“What is the risk, right now — and what changed?”

RatEx42 is not a regulator, law enforcement body, or a court. We do not provide legal, financial, or investment advice. We publish evidence-led assessments, clearly separated from user-submitted opinions.

2) Two-layer system: Editorial Risk Rating vs User Reviews

RatEx42 operates a strict two-layer model to keep ratings defensible and avoid “crowd noise” contaminating evidence-based decisions.

A) R42 Risk Rating (Editorial / Evidence-led)

• Displayed as a Traffic Light (Green / Yellow / Red / Black).

• Produced by RatEx42 editors using a structured rubric and evidence grading.

• Change-controlled: any rating change is logged with date, trigger, and supporting evidence.

B) User Rating (Community / Stars)

• Displayed as star ratings and written reviews submitted by users.

• Moderated for safety, relevance, and factuality.

• Important: User stars do not determine, override, or automatically affect the R42 Risk Rating.

In short:
Editorial rating = evidence-based.
User rating = community signal.

3) Traffic Light definitions

Our traffic lights summarize risk at a glance. They are not moral labels and do not claim guilt or wrongdoing.

• Green — Lower Risk (Verified posture)

  • Strong transparency and verifiable licensing/registration where relevant.

  • Clear rails and responsible entity.

  • No major adverse signals identified at time of review.

• Yellow — Caution (Mixed / Partially verifiable)

  • Some elements verified, but gaps exist (e.g., unclear corporate structure, partial licensing clarity, moderate rail opacity, rising complaints).

  • No decisive adverse evidence, but risk is non-trivial.

• Red — High Risk (Material gaps / credible adverse indicators)

  • Unverified licensing claims, meaningful rail opacity, repeated complaints, or credible adverse signals.

  • Consumers/partners should exercise strong caution.

• Black — Severe Risk (Strong adverse evidence / avoidance signals)

  • Strong evidence of serious risk indicators (e.g., regulator warning, confirmed deceptive licensing claims, sanctions proximity, persistent evasion patterns).

  • Engagement is strongly discouraged.

4) What we assess (rubric pillars)

Each profile is assessed across seven pillars. Not every pillar carries the same weight in every case, but we aim for consistency across coverage.

1. Regulatory & licensing reality
   Verified authorisation vs marketing claims, register checks, jurisdictional scope.

2. Ownership & entity transparency
   Legal entity identification, responsible persons, jurisdictional opacity, shell structures.

3. Customer exposure & product risk
   Custody, leverage/derivatives, consumer safeguards, withdrawal practices.

4. AML/KYC & compliance posture
   KYC gates, sanctions controls, source-of-funds posture, policy clarity.

5. Payment rails & chokepoint opacity
   Open-banking gateways, PSP chains, crypto processors, Merchant-of-Record (MoR) clarity.

6. Enforcement / warnings / litigation
   Regulator actions, public warnings, enforcement announcements, court filings.

7. Operational integrity
   Domain churn, clone brands, sudden TOS changes, support reliability, incident history.

5) Evidence grades (Confirmed / Corroborated / Indicated / Unknown)

RatEx42 assigns an Evidence Grade to reflect how strongly claims are supported.

• Confirmed
  Supported by primary sources (e.g., regulator registers, court filings, official statements, verifiable documents, direct technical observation with preserved artifacts).

• Corroborated
  Supported by multiple credible sources or independent artifacts, but without a single definitive primary record for every detail.

• Indicated
  Reasonable signals exist, but evidence is incomplete or based on limited sources. Treated as a flag, not a conclusion.

• Unknown
  Not enough reliable information available at time of review. We state uncertainty explicitly.

Why this matters:
The Evidence Grade helps readers distinguish between hard facts and risk signals.

6) Change log: how and why ratings move

RatEx42 treats “change over time” as a core feature. Each profile includes a Change Log showing:

• When the rating changed

• What changed (e.g., Yellow → Red)

• Why (trigger event)

• Evidence pointers (links to sources and/or related investigations)

• Reviewer notes (brief, compliance language)

Typical triggers:

• New rails discovered (additional gateway layers, processor switches)

• Domain churn or brand migration

• Regulator actions or warnings

• Court/case developments

• Verified ownership/entity updates

• Verified licensing/registration changes

7) Review cadence: “Last reviewed” and “Next review due”

Every profile displays:

• Last reviewed: the date RatEx42 last verified and updated the profile.

• Next review due: the planned date for reassessment.

High-risk profiles may be reviewed more frequently when new triggers emerge.

8) User reviews: moderation & trust tiers

To keep community input useful (and safe), reviews are moderated and may be categorised by trust level.

Moderation aims to remove:

• Personal data (addresses, phone numbers, bank details, full wallet addresses)

• Harassment, threats, hate, or doxxing

• Unsupported criminal accusations presented as fact

• Copy-paste spam, affiliate manipulation, coordinated brigading

Trust tiers (where used):

• Verified experience: reviewer provided credible proof (redacted), such as transaction records, screenshots, or support ticket evidence.

• Unverified experience: plausible narrative but no proof supplied.

Important: Even “Verified experience” does not automatically change the editorial rating. It may prompt editorial review.

9) Corrections, complaints, and right-to-reply

RatEx42 aims to be accurate and fair. If you believe a profile contains an error, you can request a correction.

How to request a correction
Provide:

• The profile URL

• The specific statement you believe is inaccurate

• Supporting evidence (public registers, filings, verifiable documentation)

What happens next

• We acknowledge receipt.

• We review evidence and, where warranted, update the profile and add a change log entry.

• We may publish a brief correction note describing what changed.

Right-to-reply
If you represent an entity covered on RatEx42, you may submit a factual response. We may publish it (edited for clarity and safety), or summarise it, alongside our evidence notes.

Editorial independence
RatEx42 does not accept payment to change ratings. Advertising or sponsorship (if any) is separated from editorial decision-making.

10) Disclaimers 

• RatEx42 publishes risk assessments, not determinations of guilt.

• Ratings reflect the information available at the time of review and may change.

• Do not treat any rating as legal, financial, or investment advice.

• Always do your own due diligence and consult professionals where appropriate.