THE LIVING BRAND INDEX
A current reading. A permanent record.
Dynamic brands deserve a reading that can evolve. New work, brand memory and multiple perspectives inform our assessment. Every published change should explain why.
The five September 2026 launch reviews carry editorial scores under the shared six-axis method. They claim no controlled Memory result. Read the current editorial method for their evidence standard and limits. The policies below govern later revisions and separately validated assessments.
One brand. Four connected views.
- Review
- The current independent reading: the argument, supporting evidence, counterevidence and the basis of its score.
- Brand in Use
- The work as it appears across campaigns, products, partners and communities. A work’s release date is recorded separately from when we received it.
- Behind the Brand
- The decisions and constraints explained by the people involved, in their approved words, alongside our editorial consideration.
- History
- What changed, what was confirmed and why. A new reading keeps the earlier decision in the record.
Six reasons to look again
- Additional evidence
- We learn more about work that already existed.
- Observed evolution
- New work changes what the brand demonstrably does.
- Correction
- We correct a factual or assessment error.
- Maturity
- Delayed or longitudinal evidence becomes available.
- Method change
- A new instrument or rubric requires a separately labelled reassessment.
- Currency
- Evidence no longer supports a claim about the brand today.
Evidence can change more than a number.
A review case can update the reading, confirm it, correct an error, request more evidence or explain why an input is outside its scope. Participation does not guarantee a higher score. A better explanation can strengthen the argument while leaving the number unchanged.
In the separate research framework, Craft covers Execution, Distinctiveness, Fit and Range. Memory covers Recall, Rebuild, Respond and Renew. Each finding keeps its own evidence, last-tested date, limitations and maturity. Missing evidence is not a zero.
Registered numerical lens weights are Craft 45/25/20/10 and Memory 25/25/25/25. These are explicit editorial policy, not calibrated universal norms, and have not been applied to the September editorial scores. A separately validated BMI requires a locked scoring receipt. A review form cannot create that proof.
New evidence can raise, lower or leave a finding unchanged. No points are awarded for buying a service, uploading more material or simply getting older.
- Score basis retained
- The editor explains why the existing score still applies to this reading.
- Previous score is historical
- The earlier score remains a dated record, rather than a claim about the current identity.
- Current score under review
- The new evidence needs reassessment. We withhold a current number instead of quietly carrying the old one forward.
Prepared model arguments are research inputs. They do not establish audience memory, automatically alter a score or create comparable movement in the rankings.
From your perspective to a signed decision.
Start a saved conversation in the brand workspace, or accept a project-specific invitation from an editor. Explain the purpose, the defining decisions and the room for variation. Add original sources and mark uncertain dates honestly. An editor can follow up with a precise question about a finding or a piece of work.
You choose what may be analysed, attributed and quoted. Quotation permission applies to an exact excerpt of a submitted version. Amendments become a new version. Withdrawing permission blocks future analysis or removes affected public material as appropriate; the record of the decision remains visible without that material.
The editor checks the sources and freezes the inputs for the case. The engine prepares the argument; a human editor accepts, changes or challenges it. A separate editor approves the final publication. Your workspace then shows the published outcome that considered your submission.
Independent by design.
Brands and agencies can supply sources, clarify intent and correct facts. Their relationship is checked separately from their claims. The assessment author cannot approve their own work, and verified representatives cannot adjudicate their own brand.
Sources are checked before acceptance. Public ratings use publishable evidence; confidential submissions remain in private review. Every published assessment retains its predecessor and a signed decision.
A correction can be prioritised. Unreviewed submissions never move a public score. Assessment evidence uses a maximum 180-day test-date spread; each instrument also states its own validity deadline.
Challenge the finding.
Point to the criterion, supply counterevidence and explain the correction you believe is needed. We record the decision even when the score does not change. We preserve legitimate creative disagreement.