Editorial policy
robot.pet is intentionally conservative. Product pages separate source-backed details from uncertain buying facts and avoid treating marketing language as proof.
Plain-language boundaries for how this public catalog should be read.
Official manufacturer, distributor, app-store, or product pages are preferred when describing product features, price context, availability, and app requirements.
Each catalog record carries visible source references with a title, URL, publisher, and accessed date so readers can inspect the underlying source directly.
Evidence status labels describe how settled a profile is. Mixed or non-final labels mean useful facts exist, but at least one important buying detail needs caution or future review.
If pricing, shipping, subscription, app, medical, or care-use details are unclear, the page should say so rather than filling the gap with unsupported claims.
Therapeutic, emotional support, senior-care, dementia-care, child-safety, and wellbeing claims are handled as review prompts, not final recommendations.
Readers should involve qualified care, clinical, or safety professionals when a product is being considered for care programs or vulnerable users.
The current MVP has no checkout, sponsored placement system, affiliate tracking, or paid ranking logic in the runtime.
Research Engine may support upstream evidence gathering, but robot.pet serves public pages from local deterministic data and does not call Research Engine at request time.