How WTW grades transparency

Clear terms. Visible conditions. Evidence you can inspect.

The WTW Transparency Grade measures the completeness, clarity and consistency of disclosed campaign terms. It does not measure legality, legitimacy, safety, fairness, your odds of winning or guaranteed prize delivery.

The 100-point framework

• Organizer & rules: 25 points
• Prize & conditions: 25 points
• Closing & drawing: 20 points
• Entry & eligibility: 20 points
• Winner & claim process: 10 points

A (High Transparency): 90–100 · B (Good Transparency): 80–89 · C (Moderate Transparency): 70–79 · D (Limited Transparency): 60–69 · F (Poor Transparency): below 60. A score of 100 means every applicable disclosure criterion was satisfied on the evidence reviewed; it is not proof of legitimacy, safety, favorable odds or prize delivery. A low grade is not an allegation of fraud.

Evidence before a grade

Every criterion has a published, fixed weight. Clear and consistent supported disclosure earns its points. A confirmed omission after complete rules and entry-page review, or a contradiction, earns no points for that criterion. Unreviewed or inaccessible evidence remains unknown, not zero. We retain a possible score range and do not drop unknown criteria to inflate a score.

A letter requires resolved core criteria, at least 90% of scoring weight assessed and no uncertainty that could change its band. A numerical score requires every applicable criterion resolved. Otherwise you see an explicit incomplete assessment. Clicking a category shows the reasons and evidence.

Criterion weights and required review

• legal sponsor · contact or address — 8 points; core criterion
• controlling rules · source priority · campaign applicability — 9 points; core criterion
• edition identity · entry and rules association — 8 points; core criterion
• prize identity · quantity · condition and limitations — 7 points; core criterion
• award conditions · substitutions · cancellation or refunds — 7 points; core criterion
• taxes and withholding · shipping or pickup · registration and travel — 6 points
• actual versus representative image · image and prize association — 5 points
• entry close or sellout trigger · timezone · extensions — 8 points; core criterion
• online cutoff · postmark and receipt if offered — 6 points; core criterion
• drawing timing or process · scheduled versus completed — 6 points
• geography · age · household and excluded persons — 7 points; core criterion
• purchase mechanics · all offered entry routes · costs — 5 points; core criterion
• person limits · household limits · method limits · cap unit — 4 points
• recurring charges · subscription cancellation — 4 points
• selection process · winner count — 4 points
• notification method · announcement process — 3 points
• claim deadline · disqualification · unclaimed prize — 3 points

Additional profile checklists

One framework, different structures

Sellout raffles, conditional awards, cash alternatives, multiple prizes, pooled promotions, subscriptions, judged contests, charities and non-USD campaigns have additional evidence checklists. Clearly disclosed conditions do not automatically reduce the grade. A sellout trigger is different from an unknown deadline. A ticket cap is different from a participant cap. A drawing schedule is not proof the drawing happened.

Weights stay fixed. Only recurring-charge criteria can be marked not applicable, with evidence confirming a non-subscription structure; this earns that criterion’s fixed points. Charity status, operator popularity, advertising spend, prize value and currency never earn bonus points. No historical winners reviewed does not mean winners were not paid.

Conditions stay visible

Material conditions and contradictions remain visible before the entry action even if the aggregate grade is high. Conflicting controlling rules and stale secondary copy are distinguished. Grading never overrides publication holds or the separate Best Odds rules.

Freshness and scope

Active source evidence expires after seven days. Material term changes invalidate affected findings. Failed checks never renew an assessment. Historical assessments are labeled as historical. “Terms reviewed” describes the assessment scope, not a safety certification.

Methodology version: wtw-transparency/1. Each assessment retains official source references, criterion reasons, fingerprints and its revision history.