We publish who owns what.

The conflict, stated before anyone else states it

Here is the sentence a competitor, a journalist or a forum thread could write about Claudphic:

"The 'independent' comparison site is owned by an ad-tech company that sells to advertisers."

That sentence is unfair, and it is also very difficult to argue with after the fact. Denials sound like denials. The only durable answer is to publish the structure and the rules in advance, so that anyone checking finds the full picture before they find the accusation.

So: Claudphic owns Unfiltered Choice, an independent comparison publication serving the United States. Claudphic also owns Claudphic Ads, advertising-attribution software sold to businesses in India. Both statements are true simultaneously. What follows is how they are prevented from contaminating each other.

Rule one — Claudphic Ads never advertises on Unfiltered Choice

Not a display banner. Not a text mention. Not a "recommended tool" slot, a resources-page listing, a newsletter placement, or a footer link. Not at a discount, not at full price, not for free.

This rule has no expiry and no exception clause. The moment a Claudphic product appears as promotion on a Claudphic publication, the publication's independence becomes a matter of opinion rather than structure — and opinions about independence are worth very little to a reader deciding where to put their business banking.

Rule two — Unfiltered Choice never ranks a category Claudphic Ads competes in

Unfiltered Choice covers business finance today and has mapped business software and insurance as future verticals. If a business-software vertical ever ships a CRM, lead-management or marketing-attribution comparison, Claudphic Ads is excluded from that comparison entirely — not ranked last, not ranked fairly, not included with a disclosure badge. Excluded.

The exclusion is stated on the comparison page itself, in plain language, so a reader does not have to find this page to learn about it. The alternative — including our own product and asking readers to trust the scoring — would be exactly the kind of "trust us" arrangement the publication exists to argue against.

Rule three — separate channels and separate operations

The media property runs its own contact channels and its own editorial process. A commercial conversation about Claudphic Ads and an editorial decision on Unfiltered Choice never travel through the same thread.

Claudphic is currently a single-founder company, so we should be precise about what this rule does and does not achieve. It does not create organisational separation between two teams, because there is one person. What it does create is procedural separation: editorial scoring is completed and recorded against the published rubric before any commercial discussion regarding that provider takes place, and the rubric is public so a reader can audit the output even when they cannot audit the process. As Claudphic grows, this rule becomes structural — separate teams, and separate legal entities where that is practical.

We would rather describe this limitation accurately than imply a firewall that a company of this size does not have.

Rule four — this policy is published, and so are corrections

This page is the policy. It names Claudphic Ads specifically rather than referring vaguely to "affiliated products," it states rules one through three without softening language, and it is linked from Unfiltered Choice as well as from this site.

Alongside it sits a correction commitment. If Unfiltered Choice publishes something inaccurate, the correction appears on the page itself with a date and a description of what changed — not a silent edit. Silent edits are how publications lose the ability to be trusted about anything, including their corrections.

How the money works, and what it cannot buy

Unfiltered Choice earns affiliate commissions: when a reader opens an account with a provider after clicking through, the publication may receive a payment. It also plans directly sold advertiser placements, which will be clearly labelled as advertising and will sit outside the ranked comparison rather than inside it.

Neither mechanism buys position. Scores are produced from the published rubric before commercial terms are considered, and providers with no affiliate relationship at all are included and can rank first. If that ever stops being true, this page is a lie and we would deserve to be caught.

Claudphic Ads earns monthly subscription revenue from Indian businesses at published prices. It has no revenue relationship with Unfiltered Choice in either direction. The full breakdown is on the revenue disclosure page.

Why we do not brand the publication as ours

Claudphic follows an asymmetric brand architecture: software products carry the Claudphic name, media properties do not. Claudphic Ads is called Claudphic Ads. Unfiltered Choice is called Unfiltered Choice, and any future publication will be independently named too.

This is sometimes read as hiding the relationship. It is the opposite — the relationship is disclosed in Unfiltered Choice's footer, on its about page, and in full detail here. What is avoided is performing the relationship: a masthead that reads "a Claudphic company" places the corporate parent in front of the reader at the exact moment the publication is asking to be judged on its independence. Disclosure belongs where someone checking will find it. Branding belongs where it helps the reader, and on a comparison publication it does not.

How to report a suspected conflict

If you believe Claudphic has broken one of these rules — or has a conflict we have not thought of — tell us. The process is deliberately simple:

1. Write to us through the channels on the contact page, with the URL and a description of the concern.
2. We acknowledge within two working days. Acknowledgement is not agreement; it means the concern has been received by a human and is being looked at.
3. We investigate and respond in writing, explaining what we found, including when we conclude no conflict exists.
4. Where a correction is warranted, it is published on the affected page with a date and a note describing what changed.

We would rather receive a report that turns out to be unfounded than have a real one go unreported because the process looked bureaucratic.

What this page is not

It is not a legal document, and it does not replace the terms and conditions or the privacy policy. It is an operating commitment: a description of how Claudphic behaves, published so that behaviour can be checked against it.

It is also not finished. As Claudphic grows — new properties, new products, eventually people — this policy will need to grow with it. Changes will be dated and the previous version described, because a conflicts policy that changes quietly is not a conflicts policy.