Audit library
Adult Platform Audit is building full platform audits from the worker-side Platform Independence Index. The current library stage includes desktop review estimates, category analysis, evidence standards, and a repeatable scoring structure.
Use the Platform Lookup to choose a category, select a business, and read the current worker-side independence estimate, score band, notes, and source links where available.
Current platform entries are desktop review estimates. A full audit should have stronger evidence labels, clearer confidence levels, correction paths, and dated source review.
What exists now
The goal is to make platform structure easier to compare without pretending every estimate is a completed audit.
Audit pipeline
A platform should move through the same process before APA treats a review as final.
Step 01
Identify the platform model before scoring one company.
Step 02
Read public terms, help pages, payout information, feature pages, and policies.
Step 03
Apply the 50-point Platform Independence Index to visible structure.
Step 04
Separate confirmed facts, structural inferences, missing information, and testing needs.
Step 05
Publish only when score, sources, confidence level, and caution level are clear.
Audit standard
A full audit should review the platform as a work structure: what the worker controls, what the platform controls, what is uncertain, and what still requires testing.
| Audit element | Required before publication |
|---|---|
| Score summary | Platform name, category, score, score band, audit status, review date, and confidence level. |
| Score breakdown | Client ownership, payment control, pricing control, communication freedom, visibility control, rule transparency, discipline risk, brand portability, and work-method control. |
| Evidence labels | Confirmed facts, structural inferences, missing information, and items requiring live testing. |
| Category fit | A clear explanation of why the platform belongs in a specific category and whether it blends more than one model. |
| Key tradeoff | A plain-language explanation of what the platform may provide and what control the worker may give up in exchange. |
| Publication caution | Low, medium, or high caution depending on how much information is confirmed, inferred, missing, or untested. |
| Correction path | A way for workers, readers, and platforms to submit factual corrections or updated policy information. |
Desktop review can support preliminary structural analysis, but it should not be presented as live worker testing.
Audit organization
Platform pages should be compared within their category. A cam platform, ad directory, AI twin tool, and subscription platform create different control problems.
Worker-controlled scheduling, client contact, pricing, screening, and payment routing.
View category Category 2Listings, search visibility, paid placement, inquiries, and exposure dependency.
View category Category 3Clip sales, storefronts, buyer access, catalog control, and search placement.
View category Category 4Recurring fan access, paid messages, payout rules, and account dependency.
View category Category 5Metered communication, billing control, repeat-client access, and ranking systems.
View category Category 6Live rooms, tips, tokens, ranking systems, viewer access, and payout control.
View category Category 7Persona automation, likeness control, training data, and client substitution risk.
View category Category 8Management layers, money routing, account control, content custody, and exit barriers.
View category Category 9Free clip traffic, recommendations, takedowns, monetization rules, and audience portability.
View categoryHelp improve the library
Adult Platform Audit accepts public policy links, factual corrections, screenshots, payout information, account notices, and worker testing notes. Submissions are reviewed as leads, not treated as automatic proof.
Terms pages, help pages, payout rules, screenshots, policy links, worker testing notes, account restriction notices, takedown records, payment notices, and factual corrections.
Claims still need context, source clarity, date checking, and evidence labeling before they are used in a public audit.
Do not send illegal material, private client information, passwords, explicit images, or anything you do not have the right to share.
APA already has a working reference layer. The full audit library should build on that carefully, with dated sources, evidence labels, and correction paths.