No provider can buy inclusion, a favorable assessment, or approval of what we publish. The conclusions of the Center of Eminence follow the evidence, and organizations we cover can challenge them with evidence of their own.
This policy applies to all research published by the Center of Eminence and its three centers (CoE | AI Cost & Governance, CoE | AI Talent & People and CoE | Vendor Intelligence), and to the research drawn from Eminence Scan and EmTrace.
Who owns and funds the work
The Center of Eminence is developed, published, and funded by Eminence Growth Solutions (EGS), a company that develops intelligent platforms, tools, and resources to help organizations and professionals navigate the evolving relationship between artificial intelligence, business, and work.
The Center of Eminence maintains editorial independence from the vendors, technology providers, and other organizations it evaluates.
Editorial coverage is not for sale
Editorial coverage is not for sale. No organization can pay to secure inclusion, influence an assessment, receive favorable placement, or approve content before publication.
Coverage is selected for its relevance to the decisions each center serves, the processes and use cases involved, and developments that warrant further examination. We welcome suggestions from readers, practitioners, and vendors, but coverage decisions are made independently.
Eminence Growth Solutions may offer paid memberships, subscriptions, tools, or other products and services. These commercial offerings do not determine editorial assessments or conclusions. Any future arrangements that could materially influence how readers interpret our research will be disclosed.
Who decides what is published
Eminence Growth Solutions retains full responsibility for editorial decisions and published content.
We use AI-supported research workflows to gather information, analyze evidence, evaluate claims, identify uncertainties, and develop content. These systems support the editorial process but do not independently authorize publication or determine final editorial positions.
How we handle commercial interests
EGS may maintain commercial relationships with technology providers, business partners, clients, and other organizations operating in markets the Center of Eminence covers. These relationships do not grant editorial influence or approval rights.
Ordinary commercial relationships, such as subscriptions to third-party technologies, differ from arrangements that could create an actual or perceived conflict of interest. Relevant relationships may include financial interests, vendor partnerships, referral or affiliate compensation, paid promotional arrangements, or engagements that could reasonably call the independence of an assessment into question.
Where a relationship presents a potential material conflict of interest, it is disclosed within the relevant content.
A commercial relationship does not constitute an editorial endorsement. Likewise, disclosure of a relationship does not exempt any provider from critical examination.
What our evidence labels mean
Our research distinguishes what providers claim, what available evidence supports, and what remains uncertain. We separate vendor-stated claims, independent market evidence, substantiated outcomes, pricing and commercial observations, known limitations, CoE analysis, community and practitioner observations, and member submissions still under review.
A vendor’s claim is not proof of an outcome. A positive review does not establish enterprise readiness. An individual experience does not necessarily represent broader product performance. Public reviews and practitioner discussions may help identify recurring themes or questions for further investigation, but individual accounts are not treated as independent verification of specific incidents or performance outcomes. Published case studies and reported results are assessed against their underlying evidence, distinguishing outcomes independently substantiated through available sources from those reported by the organizations involved.
Where evidence is incomplete, conflicting, or unavailable, we identify those limitations rather than presenting assumptions as established conclusions. Our Research Methodology & Evidence Standards explains the classifications and the review process.
How to respond to our coverage
Organizations referenced in our research may challenge a factual claim, provide additional evidence, request clarification, or submit a response to a published assessment. Products evolve, commercial arrangements change, and public information may not fully reflect an organization’s capabilities or circumstances.
Send the page title, its version where shown, and supporting evidence to egsconnect@eminencegrowthsolutions.com. Responses are evaluated against the available evidence and our editorial standards. Following review, we may:
- Correct or update published information, documenting material corrections in our corrections log.
- Incorporate additional evidence or relevant clarification into the assessment.
- Publish a clearly attributed organizational response alongside the original content.
- Maintain the existing assessment where the evidence continues to support it.
The opportunity to respond does not provide editorial approval rights or guarantee that a requested change will be made.
Our obligation is to the integrity of the evidence and the accuracy of the research, not to the interests of any individual provider.
Where significant negative findings or contested claims concern a named organization, additional editorial scrutiny is applied before publication. Unresolved disputes and material uncertainties are identified where relevant.
How we keep the record open
Product capabilities change, providers introduce new offerings, commercial models shift, and regulatory requirements develop. We treat accuracy as an ongoing editorial responsibility rather than a one-time publication milestone.
Reader contributions, vendor responses, newly published research, and other credible evidence may prompt a review before its scheduled date. Changes are evaluated on the strength of the supporting information, regardless of its source. Page versions and review dates show when an assessment was last considered, and material corrections and significant updates follow our corrections process.
Our commitment is not that every assessment will always be complete or error-free. It is that our methods, limitations, and corrections remain transparent.
Our commitment
Editorial independence does not require avoiding conclusions or treating every perspective as equally credible. It requires that conclusions follow the evidence, commercial interests do not determine editorial outcomes, and published assessments remain open to scrutiny.
The Center of Eminence is not paid to promote solutions. Its purpose is to examine the evidence behind them.
Our measure of success is not how many technologies we recommend, but how effectively we help organizations make informed, accountable decisions about AI.