Complaints & Investigations Policy
GraiLogic exists to help video creators choose AI tools with confidence. Part of that mission is documenting not only which tools perform well, but also which tools engage in practices that harm creators — misleading pricing, undisclosed limitations, broken commercial-rights promises, or deceptive marketing. This page explains how our investigations work, what our Watchlist and Blacklist mean, and how companies and users can contact us.
1. What the Watchlist and Blacklist are
GraiLogic maintains two editorial designations:
- Watchlist — a tool is under active investigation. Credible, specific concerns have been raised and documented, but our review is not complete, or the company's response window is still open. A Watchlist entry is not a finding of wrongdoing.
- Blacklist — our investigation is complete and, in our editorial assessment, the documented evidence supports the specific concerns described on the case page. A Blacklist entry reflects our opinion based on the cited evidence as of the dates shown; it is not a legal determination, court finding, or regulatory action.
Both designations are limited to the specific practices documented on the relevant case page. They are not general statements about a company, its products as a whole, or its people.
2. Evidence standards
Every case page is built on documented evidence. Before publishing any Watchlist or Blacklist entry, we require:
- Primary sources — screenshots, invoices, official terms of service, pricing pages, or correspondence, each captured with a date and, where possible, archived (e.g., via a public web archive).
- Specificity — the concern must describe a concrete practice ("advertised price X, charged Y on [date]"), not a general sentiment ("this tool is bad").
- Reproducibility or corroboration — where a concern comes from a single user report, we seek independent corroboration (additional reports, our own verification, or public documentation) before moving an entry from Watchlist to Blacklist.
- Dated claims — every factual statement on a case page carries the date it was verified. Practices change; our documentation reflects a point in time.
3. Status labels
Every case page displays exactly one current status:
| Status | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Under investigation | Concerns documented; review in progress. |
| Awaiting company response | The company has been contacted; the 14-day response window is open. |
| Company responded | A response was received and is reflected (in full or in summary) on the case page. |
| Listed — evidence confirmed | Our review is complete; the entry is on the Blacklist. |
| Corrected | The company remedied the documented practice; the case page records the correction. |
| Resolved — delisted | The matter is closed and the entry has been removed from active listings; the case page remains as an archived record with its resolution noted. |
4. Company outreach and the 14-day response window
Before we move any entry to the Blacklist, we contact the company at its published contact address (or another verifiable channel) with:
- a description of the specific practices under review,
- the evidence we intend to cite, and
- an invitation to respond within 14 days.
If the company responds, we publish the response in full or in fair summary on the case page, clearly attributed. If the response resolves the concern, the entry is marked Corrected or Resolved — delisted.
A company's silence is not treated as an admission. If no response is received within 14 days, the case page will state only that the company was contacted on [date] and had not responded as of [date]. We may proceed to publication based on the documented evidence alone.
5. Right of reply and corrections
Companies may respond at any time, including after publication. To submit a response, correction request, or new evidence, write to investigations@grailogic.com with:
- the URL of the case page concerned,
- the specific statements you dispute, and
- documentation supporting the correction.
We review correction requests within 14 days of receipt. Where the evidence supports it, we will correct, update, or annotate the case page, and the page's changelog will record what changed and when. We do not remove accurate, documented reporting solely on request, but we will always attach a company's substantiated position to it.
6. The framing statement
Every case page carries the following statement:
7. How to file a complaint (users and creators)
If an AI tool has engaged in a practice you believe other creators should know about, email investigations@grailogic.com with:
- the tool's name and the specific practice,
- dates, screenshots, receipts, or links documenting it, and
- whether we may quote your report (we do not publish complainants' identities without permission).
We read every submission, but we cannot investigate every report, and submission does not guarantee publication. We never accept payment to list, delist, or alter any entry.
8. Scope and limitations
- Case pages address business practices relevant to video creators (pricing, licensing, commercial rights, marketing claims, data handling). We do not report on matters unrelated to that scope.
- Our verdicts, scores, and designations are editorial opinion grounded in the cited evidence.
- Nothing on this site is legal advice. Creators with a dispute against a tool vendor should consult a qualified professional in their jurisdiction.
9. Changes to this policy
We may update this policy as our processes evolve. Material changes will be dated at the top of this page. Investigations in progress are handled under the version of the policy in force when the company was first contacted.
Contact: investigations@grailogic.com · General enquiries: info@grailogic.com