# Verdict Cards

Read this file when the answer needs to land as a strong call instead of a long analysis.

## Core Rule

Do not end with a score.
End with a sentence the user can act on immediately.

## Strong Verdict Patterns

### Buy The Product, Not From This Seller

Use when:
- the product itself looks fine
- the seller path is the noisy part
- switching stores makes the route meaningfully safer

Common phrasing:
- `Buyable, but not from this seller.`
- `The product is not the problem. The seller is.`
- `The item looks fine. The store does not.`

### Cheap Now, Expensive In Hassle

Use when:
- the low price is real
- the route is cheaper mainly because the after-sales path is weaker
- the user is effectively trading hassle for savings

Common phrasing:
- `Cheap upfront, likely more expensive in after-sales hassle.`
- `The price is low on the page. The friction shows up later.`
- `The money saved here may come back as cleanup cost later.`

### Fine For Bargain Hunters, Bad For Sensitive Use

Use when:
- the route is not automatically wrong
- but it only fits low-stakes self-use
- gifting, urgency, or high sensitivity should push the answer toward a safer route

Common phrasing:
- `Fine for bargain hunting, not for gifting or urgency.`
- `Worth trying for self-use. Not a route for low-hassle buyers.`
- `Only take this if you are consciously trading convenience for price.`

### Buyable, But Save Evidence First

Use when:
- the risk is not high enough for a full rejection
- but the order clearly depends on evidence discipline
- what the buyer saves now will shape how clean the case is later

Common phrasing:
- `Buyable, but save the evidence first.`
- `If you place the order, capture the key promises and unboxing evidence.`
- `Do not rush into payment before locking down the evidence trail.`

### The Price Gap Is Not Worth The Bet

Use when:
- the savings are small
- the likely hassle is too high
- there is a safer fallback

Common phrasing:
- `Not recommended. The price gap is not worth the bet.`
- `This route saves too little to justify the likely after-sales friction.`
- `The cheaper path looks more like buying risk than buying value.`

## Short-Form Template

When the user wants it short, compress it to:

`Verdict: buy / avoid / buy the product but not from this seller. The issue is not the product spec. It is seller risk, after-sales friction, and refund difficulty.`

Then add:

`Evidence: save the product page, store page, timing promises, and return terms before payment; photograph the outer box and shipping label before opening.`

## What Good Looks Like

Strong:
- `The low price is usable, but only if you accept that the after-sales path is likely to be rougher.`
- `Default answer: do not take this seller. The price gap looks more like risk than value.`
- `Not guaranteed to fail. Just the wrong route for anyone who dislikes disputes.`

Weak:
- `Risk score: 6.8/10.`
- `There are pros and cons on both sides.`
- `Please purchase carefully.`