Scoring Guide — Wash Mitt

A condensed reference for the score chain. Read in full the first time; use as a checklist on every product.

---

Step 1 — Confirm product_kind: tool

Wash mitts are physical synthetic textile tools. No SDS pathway. If a product is described as a wash mitt but contains embedded chemical agents (e.g., a pre-soaped disposable pad), apply the Q1 impregnated-tool tiebreaker from the HOW-TO — if the chemical agent is the primary value proposition, reclassify as chemical and use the chemical algorithm.

---

Step 2 — Quality score

Five dimensions; weights: scratch_safety_pile_depth (0.40), water_soap_retention (0.25), durability_wash_cycles (0.20), secure_fit (0.10), coverage_in_recesses (0.05).

Declare the pile construction type first (specs.pile): chenille, twisted-tendril long-pile, or foam-core hybrid. Score each dimension against what that construction type is capable of.

Primary evidence sources in priority order:

1. r/AutoDetailing, Detailing World, AutoGeek threads with specific paint-outcome mentions or comparative pile tests
2. Amazon verified-purchase reviews ≥90 days post-purchase citing specific experiences
3. YouTube non-sponsored application tests showing paint inspection or durability evidence
4. Manufacturer spec claims (last — require community corroboration for any positive quality claim)

Do NOT credit "scratch-free" or "swirl-free" label claims without community corroboration.

Quality computation:

quality = (scratch_safety_pile_depth_score × 0.40)
        + (water_soap_retention_score × 0.25)
        + (durability_wash_cycles_score × 0.20)
        + (secure_fit_score × 0.10)
        + (coverage_in_recesses_score × 0.05)

---

Step 3 — Health score

Check these fields in the Rainforest product cache before computing:

• proposition_65_warning → if true, apply −1.5 deduction
• Product description/images → if natural rubber or latex cuff, apply −1.0 deduction
• Product description → PFAS treatment is rare; apply −1.5 only if documented

Base: 9.5. Common results: 9.5 (no flags) or 8.0 (Prop 65 only). Set health_confidence: not_applicable for all wash mitts.

---

Step 4 — Environment score

Score three dimensions at 0.33 each:

Dimension	What to look for
Lifecycle	Long-term Amazon reviews citing seasons or wash-cycle count; TRC Cyclone and Griot's score 8 on this; standard chenille scores 6; value-tier with documented early failure scores 4
Waste/shedding	Break-in shedding pattern in reviews; persistent vs. resolving; construction type (twisted = less shedding than chenille)
Recyclability	Cardboard packaging = 6; no take-back program = standard for category, do not penalize further

Computation:

environment_raw = (lifecycle_score × 0.33)
               + (shedding_score × 0.33)
               + (recyclability_score × 0.33)
environment = environment_raw  # store the pre-rounding decimal — display layer rounds for the user

Do NOT add a rounding row to the environment breakdown. Use exactly 3 rows (lifecycle, shedding, recyclability). Store environment_raw as-is (e.g., 5.61, 4.95, 5.94). The composite formula uses this decimal directly. See build-product.md §Universal override for rationale.

---

Step 5 — CCT composite

formula_result = (quality × 0.75) + (health × 0.15) + (environment × 0.10)
composite_raw  = (formula_result × 0.75) + (cct_opinion × 0.25)
composite      = composite_raw + cct_editorial_override

If cct_opinion is not yet set, substitute 7.0.

Hard caps (check in order):

1. Quality floor cap: quality ≤ 4.5 → composite ceiling 5.9
2. Per-kind floor: composite never displayed below 5.0 (display-layer guard only; wash mitts won't approach this)

Awards:

• composite ≥ 7.05 → awards: ["recommended"]
• composite ≥ 8.55 → awards: ["top_pick"]
• composite ≥ 8.55 AND community data is thin → do NOT award top_pick; require full evidence before top_pick

---

Step 6 — rubric_version and weight_profile

rubric_version: "2.0"
weight_profile: tool-standard

---

Step 7 — Quality notes field

quality_notes is a 1–2 sentence editorial summary of the quality score basis. Lead with the qualitative community signal (never a star rating or review count — those stay in notes.md and the listing hero-strip metadata). Then state the primary quality driver. Example: "Well Made — highly rated by owners; long twisted-tendril construction is the community benchmark for grit-safe paint contact at the premium tier."

---

Common errors for this category

• Applying SDS algorithm to a tool. Wash mitts have no SDS. Any health deduction other than Prop 65, latex, or PFAS treatment is wrong.
• Over-scoring durability from manufacturer claims. "Built to last for seasons" from brand copy scores no better than 6 without community corroboration.
• Not checking Rainforest cache for Prop 65. Always read proposition_65_warning from cache before scoring health.
• Fabric softener omission in FAQ. Every wash-mitt product page requires the fabric softener warning in the care FAQ.
• Using "scratch-free" claim as evidence. This is marketing language. Require community evidence before scoring scratch_safety_pile_depth above 7.0.