Methodology
How providers are selected
Providers are included from the current in-repo production dataset and represented as canonical entity pages under /p/[slug]/.
Inclusion is based on available listing evidence in existing directory content, not on an automatic claim of market completeness.
What factors are considered
Core factors include location clarity, delivery-zone visibility, cuisine and price labeling, recurring-plan signals, office-lunch suitability, review context, and profile completeness for user decision-making.
What is editorial judgment
Editorial judgment is applied to make results usable: prioritizing practical comparability, reducing noise, and shaping category links. Rankings are curated and useful, not presented as mathematically absolute or universally final.
How updates are verified
Each profile carries a visible last-reviewed date. Verification in this sprint is based on structured checks against the repository dataset and route-level rendering output. Missing or unknown facts are omitted rather than guessed.
Review work is done at page level as well as provider level. When a hub or category page is updated, related provider pages are also checked for internal-link fit, coverage wording, and whether a recurring or office-lunch claim still matches the actual dataset.
How corrections can be requested
Use the contact and correction pathway with provider slug, page URL, and the specific field requiring correction. Editorial updates are logged into the next review cycle.
What we do not claim
The directory does not claim to be exhaustive, fully automated, or universally final. It is a curated decision-support layer over the current provider dataset, and some routes will remain tighter or narrower than others where verified market coverage is limited.
Affiliation disclosure
This directory may include businesses with potential commercial or operational affiliation to site operators (for example where historical site attribution exists). Affiliated cases should be disclosed on trust pages and, where relevant, within provider-level source notes.
The current review cycle expanded how provider pages, hubs, and category pages are checked for fit, internal linking, and claim discipline.
- Recurring-lunch pages now distinguish explicit subscription signals from softer monthly-planning cues.
- Provider pages were revised to reduce template sameness and to explain good-fit, tradeoffs, and similar alternatives more clearly.
- Correction requests remain routed through the contact page with provider slug and exact field references.
This directory is editorially curated from public signals plus human judgment. Some listed businesses may have commercial affiliation with site operators; those cases should be explicitly disclosed.