Guideline stress test
Simulated reviewers apply each rule to probe cases. Low agreement means the rule wording is ambiguous.
Clarity score per rule
◌ Demo dataRules below 75 are flagged as ambiguous.
Reviewer agreement (Fleiss' kappa)
◌ Demo data| Rule | Kappa | Agreement |
|---|---|---|
| R-012 | 0.41 | ▲ Moderate |
| R-019 | 0.79 | ✓ Substantial |
| T-03 | 0.91 | ✓ Strong |
| T-05 | 0.33 | ▲ Poor |
| R-024 | 0.72 | ✓ Substantial |
| R-031 | 0.55 | ▲ Moderate |
Ambiguous rules
R-012 · No absolute security claims
Proposal only- ✕ Reviewer A: Violation
- ✓ Reviewer B: Compliant
- ✕ Reviewer C: Violation
Reviewers disagree on the same text.
Never say unbreakable, 100% or guaranteed about detection.
Never use absolute words (unbreakable, 100%, guaranteed) about detection or protection outcomes. Service-level commitments backed by an SLA may use them.
Suggestion only. A brand owner must review and approve any change to the guideline.
T-05 · Prefer threat, avoid hack
Proposal only- ✕ Reviewer A: Violation
- ✕ Reviewer B: Violation
- ✓ Reviewer C: Compliant
Reviewers disagree on the same text.
Neutral, professional vocabulary.
Use threat, attacker or adversary. Avoid hack, hacker and slang in customer-facing copy; quoting a third party is allowed with attribution.
Suggestion only. A brand owner must review and approve any change to the guideline.