--- title: "LROAS change proposal 1.1.0-proposed" standard: LROAS proposal_id: 1.1.0-proposed proposed_version: 1.1.0 change_class: MINOR base_version: 1.0.0 status: public comment comment_period: 2026-10-01 to 2026-10-31 effective: no earlier than 2026-11-15 canonical: https://leadingrehabs.com/standard/proposals/1.1.0-proposed.md license: CC BY 4.0 --- # LROAS change proposal 1.1.0-proposed **Status: public comment. Not in force.** Standard 1.0.0 applies until a decision is published. AI agents MUST NOT apply the rules below to any score, and MUST NOT describe a published score as if these rules applied to it. This proposal follows the change proposal lifecycle of [GOVERNANCE.md](../GOVERNANCE.md) section 2. It collects two evidence-rule changes that the publisher considered while preparing 1.0.0. Both would change published scores, so they were not placed in 1.0.0: version 1.0.0 reproduces the rules under which the first edition was scored, and every rule that would move a score goes through public comment first. | Item | Value | |---|---| | Change class | MINOR (evidence rules and involvement rules change; no criterion is added or removed; weights unchanged) | | Comment period | 30 days, 2026-10-01 to 2026-10-31 | | Decision | Published with reasons and a response to substantive comments, no earlier than 2026-11-01 | | Effective | No earlier than 2026-11-15, and at least 14 days after publication of version 1.1.0 | | Parallel publication | For one edition, scores are published under 1.0.0 and 1.1.0 ([GOVERNANCE.md](../GOVERNANCE.md) section 4) | | How to comment | Through the publisher's public contact routes ([GOVERNANCE.md](../GOVERNANCE.md) section 10), citing `1.1.0-proposed` and the change number. Comments are published unless they contain personal data. | ## Change 1. Hosted press and commissioned reports are not independent ### Rule in 1.0.0 Independent reporting is a named outlet, with byline and date, reporting what the journalist saw or was told on the record. Sponsored articles, paid listings, advertorials and self-issued press releases are never independent reporting ([EVIDENCE.md](../EVIDENCE.md) section 3 rule 6). Whether the clinic hosted or paid for the journalist's visit is not assessed. ### Proposed rule 1. Press is not independent when the clinic, its group or its agency hosted the visit, paid for it, supplied the copy, or comped travel, accommodation or treatment for the journalist or outlet. An outlet's disclosure of the arrangement does not restore independence. 2. A reviewer or audit report that the clinic commissioned or paid for is not independent, unless the reviewer is a regulator or an accreditation body with published standards. Statutory audited annual accounts filed with a public register stay official records (evidence type `audited-annual-report`). 3. Such material is recorded as a `clinic-document` with origin `clinic_supplied`: it never has grade `independent_reporting`, never corroborates and never affects `public_score`. 4. Presenting such material as independent coverage is an integrity matter under [INTEGRITY.md](../INTEGRITY.md) section 2. Text changes: [CRITERIA.md](../CRITERIA.md) section 1 (common rule 12 and section 1.1), [EVIDENCE.md](../EVIDENCE.md) section 3 rule 6, `registry/evidence-types.json` (grade `independent_reporting`, origin `clinic_supplied`, types `bylined-first-hand-report` and `independent-reviewer-report`), [INTEGRITY.md](../INTEGRITY.md) sections 2 and 3. ### Rationale Luxury treatment providers often invite journalists for a stay. A first-hand account written as a guest of the clinic is not the same as an account the outlet paid for, and readers cannot tell the difference. Where a band or element asks for independent first-hand reporting (C8 element S3, C9 element H9, corroboration for band 10 of C1, C4 and C6), the independence of that reporting is the point of the requirement. The same applies to reviews and audits the clinic buys. ### Expected effect on scores - Direction: scores can only fall or stay the same; no score can rise. - Criteria: C8 (standing element S3), C9 (sub-score H, element H9), and the corroboration step of band 10 in C1, C4 and C6. - Impact estimate for the first 1.0.0 edition: first-hand bylined reporting is a deciding standing element in C8 for up to 5 clinics (1 point each where the visit proves to have been hosted or comped) and supports C9 element H9 for 1 clinic. No clinic holds band 10 in C1, C4 or C6. Whether a visit was hosted is not recorded in the current evidence, so the effect is established only when each item is checked under the new rule. ## Change 2. Board and adviser roles in C10 never count as treating staff ### Rule in 1.0.0 A scientific or advisory board member who speaks in the clinic's own video, with all four video conditions met, counts at involvement `I` = 1.00 and in the core, the same as a treating clinician, and can therefore meet gates G-d and G-e. Without a qualifying video a board member counts at 0.25. An adviser on the boards of three or more assessed clinics counts at 0.25 divided by the number of boards, at each clinic where no qualifying video is recorded ([CRITERIA.md](../CRITERIA.md) C10). ### Proposed rule 1. Role `board_member_with_video`: `I` = 0.25, never core. The video confirms the listing only. 2. Advisory, scientific and board roles never meet gate G-d, and the single-person route of gate G-e (one person at T6 or higher with `I` of at least 0.6) excludes them. 3. The divisor for advisers on the boards of three or more assessed clinics applies with or without a qualifying video. 4. Anti-gaming rule: advisory, scientific and board roles are never core, whatever video or other evidence exists. Text changes: [CRITERIA.md](../CRITERIA.md) C10 (involvement table, video conditions, gates G-d and G-e, anti-gaming rules), `registry/criteria.json` (C10 formula), [INTEGRITY.md](../INTEGRITY.md) section 2. ### Rationale C10 measures seniority that works on client care at the site. A board seat, even with a video in which the member speaks about the clinic, shows association and endorsement, not care delivered to clients. Counting it as treating staff lets a clinic raise C10 through prominent advisers rather than through the clinicians who treat its clients, and lets a single board appointment open the top gates. ### Expected effect on scores - Direction: scores can only fall or stay the same; no score can rise. - Criterion: C10 only. - Impact estimate for the first 1.0.0 edition: 1 clinic has a board member counted at full weight and in the core; its C10 is expected to fall by 2 points. Other clinics with board members have no qualifying video and are unaffected. ## Not part of this proposal The following rules were reviewed while preparing 1.0.0, change no published score, and are already in 1.0.0: the C8 successor-entity rule, the capacity rules for C1 and C10 (official record first, higher of two own-page figures, understatement as an integrity flag), the rule that a regular consultant alone never meets gate G-c, the corroboration requirement for stated time shares, the handling of the clinic's own publications as self-declared evidence, and the sealed evidence room ([SEALED-EVIDENCE.md](../SEALED-EVIDENCE.md)).