openclaw - 💡(How to fix) Fix [Ballast] Draft 'How We Vet' page — customer-facing vetting rubric [1 participants]

Context

The /pages/how-we-vet page is the credibility infrastructure the entire Ballast brand rests on. It must exist before launch and every product page links to it.

The machine-readable rubric is fully specified in data/scripts/PRODUCT_VETTING_PROTOCOL.md. This issue is the customer-facing version.

What to write

Per PRODUCT_VETTING_PROTOCOL.md §7, the public version includes:

1. The four evidence tiers, plainly stated (no internal implementation details)
2. The four gates (mechanism, threshold compliance, claim safety, supplier quality), plainly stated
3. An example verdict: one approved SKU with reasoning, one rejected SKU with reason
4. "How we could be wrong" — documented limitations (evidence hierarchies imperfect, regulatory clearance ≠ efficacy, small product classes have no RCTs)
5. The vetting record: how many products reviewed vs. listed (requires first SKU research pass to be real)

Tone

This is not a marketing page. It reads like a methods section in a journal article, written in plain English. No "we care deeply about your wellness journey." Yes to "we only list products where we can cite the mechanism in one sentence."

Depends on

• #[initial SKU vetting issue] — the approved/rejected example must be real

Template stub

data/scripts/lib/shopify/templates/how_we_vet.md.tpl — currently a stub from B.3, needs content

Files

• data/scripts/PRODUCT_VETTING_PROTOCOL.md — source of truth for rubric
• data/scripts/lib/shopify/legal_pages.mjs — renders the page to Shopify
• data/scripts/lib/shopify/templates/how_we_vet.md.tpl — template to fill