Editorial & disclosure policy

Growth Partner Index is owned and operated by Fieldtrip, a growth firm that operates and invests in marketing services brands. Six agencies in the index are Fieldtrip portfolio brands and are labelled affiliated wherever they appear. They are listed on the Fieldtrip network page.

This is a commercial site. Ownership and every affiliated agency are documented on the Fieldtrip network page rather than through on-page callouts. Affiliation never changes a published score.

It does affect one ordering: on category pages the default “Recommended” view promotes Fieldtrip-affiliated agencies above the rest — four priority portfolio brands first, then the other affiliated brands, then everyone else, with published score order inside each group. That is a commercial recommendation and the page says so. The score-only sorts (“Confidence score high → low” and its reverse) and the evidence-based top lists are ordered by published score alone, with no affiliation preference.

Agency records are assembled from public sources — agency websites and case-study pages, press coverage, podcasts and interviews, platform partner and certification pages, and public review profiles. Collection is largely automated. Records are then mapped onto a fixed vocabulary of services, platforms, verticals and budget bands.

Not every record has been reviewed by a person. A listing labelled “Public-source profile” was compiled automatically from public sources and no editor has signed off on it; “Public sources + third-party references” adds that press or directory references are on file. We do not display a “verified” state, because we do not currently keep a per-record reviewer log that would make such a claim true.

• Company-published claim. A number on the agency’s own site or case study. Useful, but self-reported, usually without a stated time period or control.
• Corroborating source. A second, separate reference to the same engagement — press, a podcast, a client quote, a platform badge. It raises confidence that the work happened. It is not proof of the result, and coverage inside a shared commercial ecosystem is not independent.
• Independently verified outcome. A result checked against data we could inspect. We publish none of these. Nothing on this site should be read as an audited performance claim.

Reported figures are attributed to the agency and quoted with whatever period the source actually states. Where a source gives no period, we say so instead of implying one, and we do not infer that the agency caused the outcome.

Research and drafting are AI-assisted. Automated workflows can create drafts, run checks and prepare content for review. Publication through the editorial workflow requires an editor to approve the exact version that goes live; a later edit requires fresh approval. Scheduled draft creation does not approve or publish an article.

This describes the current editorial workflow. It does not establish that every historical article or directory record passed a documented human review.

Claims in articles carry citations with visible publication or check dates. We do not attribute an article to a named person unless that person actually reviewed it. Until a named author or reviewer is assigned, articles are bylined to the Growth Partner Index editorial organisation, which is honest about who is accountable: Fieldtrip.

Named contributors publish a profile with their background, focus areas and any commercial connection to a listed agency: Jake Jorgovan (author) and Ioana Cozma (editorial reviewer). Where an article shows a reviewer and a review date, a person checked that version’s evidence, terminology and clarity. A review is shown only when its date is at least as recent as the article’s recorded publication or last-updated date. Editors must update that date when materially revising an article. Review is not an audit of an agency and not a performance guarantee.

The published score is pure arithmetic over seven pillar values. The formula, the point limits, the proof thresholds, the tie rule and the affiliation policy are published in full on the methodology page.

In September 2026 we reconciled score arithmetic and proof labels with the published formula. Numerical scores remain provisional public-evidence assessments; arithmetic consistency does not constitute a fresh human audit.

Anyone can submit a correction, including the agency itself. We act on corrections that cite a source we can check.

Our policy — stated as intent going forward, not as a description of the past:

• Recheck priority commercial pages (the highest-traffic category, list and guide pages, and all affiliated listings) at least every 90 days.
• Recheck any record immediately on a material change: a rebrand, an acquisition, a dead website, a withdrawn case study, or a credible complaint.
• Remove or unpublish a listing whose website no longer resolves to the agency.

This is a policy, not an automated schedule or a guarantee about work already done. If a page looks stale, tell us and we will check it.

• We do not sell rank position, and payment does not change a score.
• We do not publish star ratings or aggregate review scores we did not collect.
• We do not route a contact request meant for one agency to a different agency. Where a commercial CTA appears, it is labelled and separate.
• We do not claim a person reviewed something when no such record exists.
• We measure outbound clicks on our own referral links for volume and page context. No personal data is attached to those events.