Who is responsible?
Establish authorship and determine whether the original source is attributable and accessible.
Source-checking begins with a record of where an assertion came from. Only then does it make sense to compare its wording with the underlying evidence and identify possible overstatements.
Establish authorship and determine whether the original source is attributable and accessible.
Find the relevant publication date, revisions and relationship to current guidance.
Distinguish measured evidence from observation, expert commentary and promotional content.
Check species, age group, studied endpoints and experimental conditions.
Look for funding statements and affiliations that may matter to interpretation.
Record uncertainties, methodological weaknesses and competing explanations.
AI systems can misread an article or generate a nonexistent reference. Public search cannot reveal every relevant document. A neatly formatted result may still be wrong if the underlying research is flawed.
Human oversight remains essential, particularly for health-related statements.
Any sound evidence review must accommodate new findings and changes in professional consensus. The Petfood-Score approach is intended to support traceable review, not replace the scientific community or the veterinarian.
For individual feeding choices, illness or therapeutic diets, veterinary assessment is the appropriate next step.
Discuss the software, workflow, reference material and boundaries of a reliable information-review process.