Skip to content
ASK/DUFFRETURN TO DESKDUFF LAB

AskDuff trust center

Review methodology

AskDuff evaluates fit, evidence, cost, tradeoffs, and alternatives—not feature-count theater.

Method disclosed

Define the job

A tool is only good in relation to the job, operator, constraints, and alternatives.

  1. 01Intended user and use case
  2. 02Required inputs and skill
  3. 03Price and switching cost

Check the evidence

Hands-on use and documented research are labeled rather than blended together.

  1. 01Direct testing status
  2. 02Current documentation
  3. 03Independent corroboration

Make the call

The verdict explains who should use it, who should skip it, and why.

  1. 01Best fit
  2. 02Material drawbacks
  3. 03Better alternatives

Evidence labels used on AskDuff

  • Personally Used — Duff has confirmed hands-on experience with the product or workflow.
  • Currently Using — Duff has confirmed it is an active part of current work.
  • Tested Briefly — direct use occurred, but the scope was limited.
  • Researched — the assessment relies on documentation, demonstrations, public evidence, or third-party sources.
  • Not Verified — the relationship, resource, claim, or outcome has not been confirmed.

What a verdict must include

  • The specific problem being evaluated.
  • The exact evidence label and the limits of that evidence.
  • Material costs, limitations, and dependencies.
  • Who benefits, who should avoid it, and viable alternatives.
  • Any verified commercial relationship beside the relevant recommendation.

Updates and corrections

Tools, prices, policies, and platform behavior change. Important changes should trigger a new review of the evidence label and the public conclusion.