iP

iPickPet

Decision-first pet nutrition

Methodology

See how iPickPet works before you trust the output.

This page shows the visible score math, the ranking inputs used in code, and the boundaries around Finder, Compare, Analyzer, ingredients, and needs.

Metric

6

finder rules

Metric

3

support claims

Metric

9

registry sources

Score math

Overall score formula

See the visible components and weights used right now.

Analyzer

Subscore math

Inspect how label-derived subscores are produced.

Finder

Ranking adjustments

See the bonuses and penalties that change shortlist order.

Trust

Claim support map

See where source-backed framing ends and platform policy begins.

What this page explains

Methodology is where users can inspect what currently affects score, how Finder applies bonuses and penalties, and where explanation boundaries stop short of scientific proof.

What this page does not claim

This page does not turn partial support into evidence-weighted ranking, it does not present Finder or Compare as clinical recommendation engines, and it does not claim that the current weights are scientifically validated.

Current overall score formula

Product-level overall score currently starts from four visible components. This is code-driven platform policy, not an evidence-weighted clinical formula.

overallScore = clamp(
  ingredientQualityScore * 0.35 +
  digestibilityScore    * 0.30 +
  safetyScore           * 0.25 +
  nutrition_balance     * 0.10
)
Ingredient quality is driven by transparency, diversity, and mapped signal effects.
Digestibility combines ingredient-pattern heuristics with label-level boosts and penalties.
Safety reflects cautionary signal effects plus some formulation flags.
Nutrition balance is a carried product field that contributes 10% of the current overall score.

Current analyzer subscore math

Analyzer uses the pasted label plus known ingredient data to derive three working subscores before the overall product score is recomputed.

ingredientQualityScore = clamp(
  50 + transparency * 0.28 + diversity * 0.08 + signalEffects.ingredientQuality
)

digestibilityScore = clamp(
  55 + transparency * 0.12 + digestibilityLift + signalEffects.digestibility
)

safetyScore = clamp(
  58 + transparency * 0.18 + signalEffects.safety
)

The current code then applies explicit adjustments for limited-ingredient formulas, novel proteins, artificial colors, and some processing methods such as air-dried, extruded kibble, or powder supplement formats.

What currently affects Finder ranking

Finder does not start from zero. It starts from product.overallScore and then applies visible heuristic bonuses and penalties based on the current answer set.

finderScore = product.overallScore
  - 30 if animal type mismatches
  - 10 if life stage mismatches
  + 10 if feed form matches
  + 12 if special need matches
  + 10 if main ingredient matches
  +  8 if budget band matches

Penalizes products that do not align with the requested animal type.

-30 when selected animalType does not match product.animalType and product is not 'both'

Penalizes products that do not align with the requested life stage.

-10 when selected lifeStage does not match product.lifeStage and product is not 'all-life-stages'

Rewards products that match the preferred feed form.

+10 for exact product.feedForm match

Rewards products whose need-related fields include the selected need value.

+12 when specialNeed matches product.specialNeeds, product.dietaryGoals, or product.healthObjectives

Rewards products with the requested main ingredient.

+10 for exact product.mainIngredient match

Rewards products whose current price placeholder aligns with the selected budget tier.

+8 when product.pricePlaceholder matches mapped budget band

Nutritional profile inputs

Protein, fat, fiber, moisture, estimated carbs, and calorie density shape the broad product position.

Ingredient and transparency inputs

Source transparency, ingredient diversity, additive restraint, and signal hits shape quality and safety interpretation.

Digestibility inputs

Digestibility is currently a heuristic layer driven by ingredient patterns, formula simplicity, some processing assumptions, and mapped signal effects.

Compliance and trust inputs

AAFCO and FEDIAF fields, recall context, and processing method act as trust signals, but they are not the whole ranking model.

Fit scores

Need-fit scores such as sensitive stomach or weight management are current policy outputs, not clinical guarantees.

Interpretive text

Editorial verdicts and trust copy explain the score; they do not replace the actual score formula.

What support mapping does

Support claims describe whether explanation language is source-backed, internal methodology, or unresolved.

What support mapping does not do

Support mapping does not currently reweight the score formula or determine rank order.

Current recommendation limitations

  • This is a heuristic ranking model, not a scientific or clinical recommendation engine.
  • Price matching relies on placeholder bands rather than current merchant pricing.
  • Need alignment depends on the current product metadata shape, not a separate evidence layer.
  • No explicit evidence-strength mapping is attached yet.

Current recommendation assumptions

  • overallScore is the current baseline quality/fit signal.
  • animal and life-stage mismatches are penalties rather than hard exclusions.
  • budget is inferred from pricePlaceholder rather than live price data.

Claim support mapping

Methodology statements are now separated into source-backed framing, internal methodology claims, and unresolved areas. This map does not change scoring weights.

Internal methodologySupport
Confidence moderate

Internal methodology only: this claim is about transparency of the platform's visible rule layer, not about external scientific validation.

Internal methodology
This does not mean the ranking policy itself is scientifically validated.
Partially supportedSupport
Confidence moderate

Partially supported because public nutrition guidance can justify some framing, but iPickPet still applies its own ranking policy and tradeoff logic.

Guidance context should not be read as evidence for the exact weighting or rank order.
Internal methodologySupport
Confidence moderate

Internal methodology only: this is a presentation rule requiring uncertainty and boundaries to stay visible.

Internal methodologyFDA labeling claims [ext]

Current source registry

  • AAFCO guidance AAFCO nutrient profile and complete-and-balanced guidance. Status reviewed. Reviewed 2026-03-21.
  • FEDIAF guidelines FEDIAF nutritional guideline framework for complete pet foods. Status reviewed. Reviewed 2026-03-21.
  • WSAVA toolkit WSAVA nutrition assessment and manufacturer-question toolkit. Status reviewed. Reviewed 2026-03-21.
  • FDA complete and balanced FDA complete-and-balanced pet food guidance. Status reviewed. Reviewed 2026-03-21.
  • FDA labeling claims FDA animal food labeling and pet food claims guidance. Status reviewed. Reviewed 2026-03-21.
  • FEDIAF requirements FEDIAF nutritional requirements overview for pets. Status reviewed. Reviewed 2026-03-21.
  • Label discrepancy review Critically appraised review of discrepancies between commercial pet food ingredients and labeling. Status reviewed. Reviewed 2026-03-21.
  • Quality claims review Systematic review of pet food quality claims around additives, preservatives, fillers, and processing. Status reviewed. Reviewed 2026-03-21.
  • Internal methodology iPickPet recommendation methodology and rule documentation. Status internal. Reviewed 2026-03-21.

See methodology inside Compare

Inspect how tradeoff framing and trust boundaries surface inside the side-by-side comparison tool.

Review ingredient interpretation

Understand how ingredient pages separate descriptive context, support-aware interpretation, and heuristic platform guidance.

Browse need guidance

See how life stage and special-need context intersects with explanation boundaries and product interpretation.