Provider NetworkTrust Guide

Provider Evidence: Claim, Verification and Completed-Work Rating

Distinguish provider claims, platform verification and ratings from completed Intendoris engagements without overstating what each proves.

Published:
Direct answer

A provider claim is self-supplied, verification confirms a defined fact or artefact, and a completed-work rating reflects a specific finished engagement. These signals are useful only when their source and limits stay visible.

Practical method

Three evidence states

Do not collapse different evidence states into one badge or imply that verification predicts future performance.

  1. 01

    Provider claim

    The provider states a capability, region, experience or method. It remains attributable to the provider until separately checked.

  2. 02

    Verification

    A defined check confirms identity, evidence or another bounded fact at a point in time. The scope and date must be visible.

  3. 03

    Completed-work rating

    A rating can be submitted only for a completed Intendoris engagement and describes that engagement, not every future project.

  4. 04

    User responsibility

    Decision owners still evaluate relevance, recency, conflicts, references, risk and contractual evidence.

Worked example

Reading a verified capability

A verified legal identity and a provider-supplied cybersecurity capability answer different questions. Neither confirms that a proposed team, scope or delivery plan fits a new need. Reviewers should inspect the evidence state for each claim instead of treating profile-level verification as universal approval.

Limits and safeguards

What this method cannot guarantee

  • Verification is bounded by what was checked and when; it is not a permanent guarantee.
  • Ratings can provide context but should not replace current, need-specific evidence.
  • The method supports judgement; it does not transfer accountability from the people approving the decision.