Audit library
Adult Platform Audit is not publishing full platform audits yet. Current work focuses on the Platform Independence Index, the 9-category comparison system, evidence standards, and a repeatable scoring structure.
This is intentional. Full audits should not be quick opinions, rumor summaries, platform marketing, or personal reviews. They should be evidence-labeled structural reviews of what the worker keeps and what the platform controls.
What exists now
Adult Platform Audit is currently focused on the foundation: the Platform Independence Index, category comparisons, evidence labels, and a consistent audit format. That makes future platform pages more credible, more cautious, and easier to compare.
Audit pipeline
The audit process starts with structure before conclusions. A platform should move through category review, desktop review, evidence labeling, and scoring before a full audit is treated as final.
Step 01
Apply the same 50-point Platform Independence Index to every platform model.
Step 02
Identify the basic control pattern of the platform category before scoring one company.
Step 03
Read public terms, help pages, payout information, feature pages, and policy materials.
Step 04
Separate confirmed facts, structural inferences, missing information, and live-testing needs.
Step 05
Publish a platform-specific page only when the score, confidence level, and caution level are clear.
Audit standard
A full audit should review the platform as a work structure. It should show what the worker controls, what the platform controls, what is uncertain, and what still requires testing.
| Audit element | Required before publication |
|---|---|
| Score summary | Platform name, category, preliminary or final score, score band, audit status, date, and confidence level. |
| Score breakdown | Client ownership, payment control, pricing control, communication freedom, visibility control, rule transparency, discipline risk, brand portability, and work-method control. |
| Evidence labels | Confirmed facts, structural inferences, missing information, and items requiring live testing. |
| Category fit | A clear explanation of why the platform belongs in a specific category and whether it blends more than one model. |
| Key tradeoff | A clear explanation of what the platform may provide and what control the worker may give up in exchange. |
| Publication caution | Low, medium, or high caution depending on how much information is confirmed, inferred, missing, or untested. |
| Correction path | A way for workers, readers, and platforms to submit factual corrections or updated policy information. |
Desktop review can support preliminary structural analysis, but it should not be presented as live worker testing.
Future audit categories
Future platform pages will be grouped by category so readers can compare similar structures instead of treating every platform as the same kind of business.
Direct inquiries, scheduling, screening, deposits, portable client records, direct communication, and worker-controlled terms.
View category Category 2Listings, paid ads, search placement, client inquiries, direct contact, and platform-controlled exposure.
View category Category 3Clip sales, custom content, storefronts, buyer relationships, search visibility, catalog control, and portability.
View category Category 4Fan subscriptions, recurring access, paid messages, subscriber relationships, payout control, and platform dependency.
View category Category 5Paid calls, live chat, messaging, per-minute pricing, repeat-client access, and platform-controlled billing.
View category Category 6Live rooms, private shows, tips, tokens, ranking systems, viewer relationships, visibility, and payout control.
View category Category 7AI-powered fan interaction, persona tools, automated messaging, training data, likeness control, and account dependency.
View category Category 8Management, bookings, account control, payment flow, client ownership, brand portability, content custody, and exit barriers.
View category Category 9Adult video portals, free clip traffic, search placement, ad-supported attention, takedowns, monetization rules, and audience portability.
View categoryHelp build the audit library
Adult Platform Audit accepts platform suggestions, factual corrections, public policy links, screenshots, payout information, and worker testing notes. Submissions are reviewed as leads, not treated as automatic proof.
Terms pages, help pages, payout rules, screenshots, public policy links, worker testing notes, account restriction notices, takedown records, payment notices, and factual corrections.
Submissions may inform review, but claims still need context, source clarity, date checking, and evidence labeling before publication.
Do not send illegal material, private client information, passwords, explicit images, or anything you do not have the right to share.
Bottom line
The audit library is being built deliberately. The current stage is methodology, category comparison, evidence standards, and desktop Platform Independence Index review. Platform-specific audits should come after the evidence standard is strong enough to support them.
Workers need more than platform hype. They need to know who controls clients, money, pricing, communication, visibility, rules, discipline, brand, work method, data, traffic, and exit power.
A careful audit system is harder to dismiss than a fast opinion. The goal is to build a reference system that workers, readers, and platforms can understand and challenge with facts.