clarity-trust

name	clarity-trust
description	Stage 4 of the stranger test — audit the trust layer. Proof proximity (evidence adjacent to the claim it supports), specificity over adjectives, credibility signals, and risk reversal at the moment of doubt. Scored 0-10.

clarity-trust — "Says who? What's the catch?"

Trust is not a section; it is a property of claims. A testimonial wall the visitor scrolls past is furniture. What converts skepticism is evidence adjacent to the claim it supports, at the moment the doubt occurs. This stage audits every claim on the page for its accompanying proof, and the page as a whole for the credibility signals that form before any claim is read.

Consume the inventory's number census and section copy.

Rubric

Check	Weight	What to verify
Proof proximity	×3	For each material claim: is its evidence within the same viewport moment? A claim in section 2 proven in section 7 is unproven where it matters. Map claim → proof distance.
Specificity (Hopkins, Caples)	×2.5	Specifics beat superlatives: "2,562,207 tokens" outranks "massive savings"; "312 people ran this in July" outranks "loved by thousands". Flag every adjective doing a number's job. Precise numbers also read as measured — round ones as invented.
Verifiability	×2	Can the visitor check the proof? Named sources, linked evidence, live data beat anonymous quotes and logos. Anonymous or unverifiable proof scores as decoration. Fabricated-looking proof (stock faces, "John D.") is negative trust.
Prominence–interpretation (Fogg)	×1.5	What's prominent gets interpreted. Do the most visually prominent elements carry credibility or undermine it (ads, hype-words, dead links, lorem ipsum, stale dates)?
Risk reversal at doubt	×1.5	Where the visitor's cost/commitment fear peaks (near price, near signup), is there an honest reversal — guarantee, free tier, no-card trial, cancel-anytime, data-export promise? And is it stated at that spot?
Consistency	×1	Numbers must agree across the page (the inventory's number census makes contradictions mechanical to find). One contradiction costs more trust than ten proofs earn.

Anchored bands

• 9–10 — Every material claim carries adjacent, verifiable, specific proof; zero contradictions; risk reversed exactly at the doubt points.
• 7–8 — Claims proven but one or two at a distance; proof specific but one unverifiable item.
• 5–6 — Proof exists but pooled in a "trust section" far from claims; or specificity is patchy (adjectives carrying key claims).
• 3–4 — Superlatives largely unbacked; proof anonymous or generic.
• 0–2 — Claims contradict each other or the proof looks fabricated.

Findings

Directions: proof-adjacent, number-for-adjective, verifiable-source, reverse-risk-here, reconcile-numbers. Evidence = the claim quoted + the location (or absence) of its proof. For specificity findings, advice must name the actual number the site could truthfully use if discoverable — never invent one; if the number doesn't exist yet, the advice is "instrument, then state".

The fabrication line (hard rule): never advise adding proof that doesn't exist — no invented testimonials, counts, or logos. If the site lacks real proof, the finding is "earn/instrument proof", and interim advice is honest specificity about what is true (mechanism transparency, live demos, open source, founder's name).

Doctrine suppression: sites with an execution-verified-numbers-only doctrine (no testimonials, no logos) are audited for proof within that doctrine — the question becomes whether the verified numbers sit adjacent to the claims they prove.

References: references/trust-experts.md.