Where the security score comes from
Eight channels, each asking one question of the published record and reading a named set of fields to answer it. They multiply rather than add — the factor beside a channel is what is left after the pressure it found, and open a channel to see every field it read, as it is stored. How the model works
Security fields
67 55 of them feed a channel
Established
31 36 left unknown, 0 not applicable
Completeness
47% the share the model could weigh
Citations
50 across 11 documents
Every value carries what it rests on, and the model weighs the four levels differently. Weight, then how many citations on this record sit at that level:
B weighs 0.85 · 50 here
The weights are methodology.json’s own; a claim seen in the artefact itself counts for more than the same claim reported second-hand. The date at the end of a row is the day that value was last read.
A channel does not price every field it reads. The ones it did are marked along their edge and carry what they added; everything else was read and cost nothing. Only a channel that composes field by field can mark a field at all — the rest price themselves by the parameters printed above their rows.
Still open on this record.
Independent audit. The pricing-page FAQ tells users they "can confirm our no-logs policy through independent audit," but names no auditor, no date and no report, and no dedicated audit or transparency page exists anywhere on the site. V01 and the whole V-block are left unknown rather than credited from a claim with nothing behind it.
Beneficial ownership. The registered entity (FREE VPN PLANET S.R.L., Bucharest, registration 44667783) is public, but no page names a founder, director or ultimate owner. M09, M11 and the group fields rest on the absence of any stated affiliation rather than a confirmed finding of independence.
the rest of what is open — 152 more words
Device identifier rung. The privacy policy names eight advertising and analytics SDKs, and Google Play discloses "Device or other IDs" shared with third parties, but neither source states whether the identifier shared is a resettable advertising ID or an app-scoped token, and the closed-source app cannot be read to settle it. C12 is left unknown rather than guessed.
Physical versus virtual fleet. The server-locations page lists 64 countries, many of them in surveillance-alliance jurisdictions, with no marker distinguishing a physical exit from a virtual one routed elsewhere. Which of those mandate countries actually host hardware could not be established, so C09b_mandate_hosting stays unknown.
Marketing versus policy scope. A pricing-page FAQ states "Planet VPN only saves user email addresses... No other data is saved or stored," while the privacy policy itself lists device details, diagnostics, general location and eight third-party SDKs as collected. The two documents describe different scopes of the same product.
On the record as a whole.
The privacy policy's legal-entity self-reference reads "FREE PLANET VPN S.R.L." while the site footer, structured data and the Apple App Store listing all agree on "FREE VPN PLANET S.R.L." — the latter matches the domain and providers.csv and is what M02 records; the policy's wording looks like a copy-paste artifact.
The homepage's own SoftwareApplication structured data lists a fourth protocol, "PlanetX", alongside OpenVPN, IKEv2 and StarGuard, but the dedicated protocols page names only three (StarGuard, OpenVPN, IKEv2) as what customers can actually select; PlanetX appears nowhere in the customer-facing prose and looks like stale metadata, so it is not in U07.
The three reviews Planet VPN quotes on its own homepage and pricing page (SafetyDetectives, VPNOverview, vpnMentor) are all classed forbidden (affiliate directory) in sources.csv.
RetentionDoes a record exist that links traffic to a person, and who checked?13 fields read · 12 left unknown · 55.0 points of pressure×0.450
Composed rather than added: a prior of 0.55 on the none branch, moved by what the paper says (0.0) and by what the practice shows (0.0), at credence 0.0 from the audit and 0.2975 from how the provider engaged, against a severity of 0.08 for what is actually retained.
How the report is publishedV02_report_publication
unknown
nothing published · recorded as
Computed
×0.103 of a clean record completeness 47%
Where the drop comes from: Retention. It is the channel this record's risk is concentrated in — on its own it takes a clean record to ×0.450, and its bar above is filled to that.
Exposure is recorded as medium and the integrity status as unexamined.
Against the rest of the register, this record sits furthest above on Jurisdiction — ×0.894 where the register averages ×0.680 — and furthest below on Ignorance, ×0.523 against ×0.662.
Every row above is one field of the published record, and every one of them can be challenged: every row carries Report, or raise something about the record as a whole. A correction with a source behind it is made the same day, and if it moves the score it moves the rank.
