Manufacturer Correction, Scientific Review & Dispute Policy

The purpose of this policy is to establish a consistent process for:

• Correcting inaccurate product information
• Reviewing newly submitted scientific evidence
• Evaluating questions regarding computational evaluations
• Improving GODS™ models when scientifically appropriate

This process allows manufacturers, researchers, and stakeholders to contribute relevant information while ensuring that computational evaluations remain evidence-driven.

Manufacturers, researchers, and authorized representatives may submit requests related to the following categories.

A. Product Information Corrections

Requests may include:

• Incorrect product name
• Incorrect manufacturer information
• Incorrect ingredient list
• Incorrect ingredient amounts
• Outdated formulation information
• Incorrect product identifiers

B. Scientific Evidence Submission

Stakeholders may provide:

• Peer-reviewed publications
• Clinical studies
• Mechanistic studies
• Pharmacokinetic data
• Molecular interaction data
• Biological pathway information
• Biomarker evidence
• Other relevant scientific information

C. Computational Model Review Requests

A request may be submitted when a stakeholder believes:

• A relevant biological pathway has not been included
• A molecular mechanism requires consideration
• An ingredient-compound relationship is incomplete
• Quantitative assumptions require review
• Additional scientific evidence may improve the model

To allow meaningful scientific review, requests should include:

Product Information

• Product name
• Manufacturer name
• Product identifier, if available
• Current ingredient information
• Supporting documentation

Scientific Requests

• Specific computational result being questioned
• Scientific basis for the request
• Supporting publications or data
• Explanation of how the information may affect the model

Upon receiving a request, GODS™ may perform the following review steps.

Step 1 — Verification of Product Information

GODS™ may review current product information, manufacturer documentation, and publicly available information. If factual inaccuracies are identified, appropriate corrections may be made.

Step 2 — Scientific Evidence Review

Submitted scientific evidence may be evaluated based on:

• Scientific quality
• Relevance to the biological process being modeled
• Experimental design
• Mechanistic relevance
• Quantitative applicability
• Consistency with existing evidence

Step 3 — Model Evaluation

Where appropriate, GODS™ scientists may evaluate whether submitted information affects:

• Biological pathway architecture
• Molecular interactions
• Biomarker relationships
• Model parameters
• Computational assumptions

If scientifically justified, models may be updated and results may be recomputed.

GODS™ results represent computational analyses based on available scientific knowledge at the time of evaluation. Because science evolves:

• Scores may change
• Rankings may change
• Additional products may be evaluated
• Biological models may expand

Changes in computational results may reflect improved scientific knowledge, expanded models, or updated data.

A manufacturer or stakeholder may disagree with a GODS™ computational evaluation. However:

• Disagreement alone does not establish an error
• Commercial interests do not determine scientific conclusions
• GODS™ does not alter results solely because a company disagrees with an evaluation

Scientific conclusions are based on evidence, model assumptions, and computational methodology.

GODS™ is committed to maintaining independent computational evaluations. Accordingly:

• Product evaluations are not influenced by advertising relationships
• Manufacturers cannot purchase favorable scores
• Commercial partnerships do not guarantee changes to evaluations
• Scientific evidence remains the basis for model decisions