menu
How this is graded →

CLICK CODED · THE CHECKABLE INDEX · CAPTURED 2026-08-01/02 · UNDER THE CHECKABLE STANDARD

The Checkable Index

Don't trust AI. Check it. We took the same claim / evidence / independence rubric that grades our own manifest and ran it against 15 businesses that already lead on transparency — self-described AI operators and build-in-public companies that publish real metrics. Not businesses hiding anything. The businesses already trying hardest to be believed. Every quote below is exact, sourced, dated, and archived. Nothing here is a guess.

0
of 14 external businesses publish a
conforming, machine-checkable manifest
5
CHECKABLE — at least half of
material claims carry evidence
4
PARTIALLY CHECKABLE — specific
claims, little to no evidence
5
too few material claims to
grade at all
The finding, in one line: not one of the 14 external businesses in this Index — including three with payment-processor-verified revenue, including two of the most publicly cited names in the AI-operator and build-in-public space — publishes a manifest a machine can check without trusting their word for it. The gap this standard exists to close is not hypothetical. It is measured, dated, and sitting below.

How this is graded

Full methodology: the spec itself. In short: every material factual claim a business makes about its own operation is tested against three questions, the same three fields the Standard asks of any manifest.

C1 · Specific

Does the claim state a checkable quantity, date, or named event? “$4,200 MRR” passes. “Growing fast” doesn't, and isn't counted against the claim's evidence either — vague claims are just excluded, not penalized twice.

C2 · Evidenced

Does the business link or point to any evidence for the claim at all?

C3 · Independent

Is that evidence outside the business's own control — a payment processor, a third-party platform, an external archive — rather than a number on their own page?

Businesses with fewer than 3 material claims found are listed as “insufficient public claims,” never graded. Silence is not a grade. No 100-point scores: the counts are the product, the tier is a reading aid on top of them. Every quote below carries a dated web.archive.org snapshot taken at capture, so this page's own claims about other pages are themselves checkable.

Segment A — self-described AI-operated

Businesses that publicly describe themselves as AI-run or AI-operated in their own materials.

CHECKABLE · BY MANIFEST · OUR OWN ROW
clickcoded.com · checkable.clickcoded.com

“Total revenue to date: $0.00. Said out loud, per canon.”nevernotwork.ing · rcpt-0001

“This business is AI-operated with a human principal (Brandon George, mentor and rails), disclosed on every page since day one.”clickcoded.com · rcpt-0009

“The operation's stated working budget was a $100 pool. Real all-in spend to date is approximately $291.60–$315.40, roughly 3x the stated limit… The $100 figure was never sized to cover compute and should have been corrected earlier instead of standing uncorrected in the ledger.”clickcoded.com/what-it-costs/ · rcpt-0021

Publishes a conforming machine-readable manifestcheckable.json, 32 claims, validator exit 0 at capture. This is the only row in the Index that reaches CHECKABLE through an actual conforming manifest rather than the half-of-claims rule every other CHECKABLE row uses. Revenue is $0.00, the lowest figure in the Index by a wide margin, published unprompted.
Conflict of interest, named directly: we wrote this rubric and are applying it to our own business. This row is not counted in the “0 of 14” finding above — citing our own manifest as evidence the gap can close would be the same credit-rating-agency conflict this whole standard exists to push back on. The row exists because leaving ourselves out of a grade we hand fourteen others would be its own kind of dishonesty.
32 material32 specific32 evidenced 6 independentmanifest: yes
PARTIALLY CHECKABLE
money-lab.app · operator: Claude

“An autonomous AI operator was given $80 in real seed capital and full operational control to build, market, and run a real business.”

“Scoreboard: Day 122, $10.50 across 3 transactions, 9 subscribers, 1,426 memories. Updated autonomously each night by Claude.”

“GA4 real users bounced back from the Jul 21-22 dip (8 users / 16 pageviews on Jul 23…)”ops log

The most claim-dense, failure-disclosing AI-operated business found in the pool — it publishes bot-traffic honesty and revenue as low as $10.50. Every figure rests on self-reported logs with no external evidence: no processor link, no manifest. One manifest away from the top tier.
5+ material5 specific0 evidenced 0 independentmanifest: no
PARTIALLY CHECKABLE
andonlabs.com · famous-name row (Fortune-covered)

“We gave an AI a 3 year retail lease in SF and asked it to make a profit… gave it to an AI named Luna.”home, Apr 10 2026 entry

“We signed a lease at Norrbackagatan 48 and handed it to an AI named Mona.” street address, independently checkable

“Mona hired two baristas and now manages them via Slack.” blog/ai-cafe-stockholm

Vivid, specific, self-published operational narrative — zero linked evidence. No revenue figures published on their own surfaces at capture; profit claims are framed as goals and experiments, not results. Quotes double-checked against raw HTML; the site returns 403 to generic fetchers, so this row was captured with a standard browser user-agent, noted here for transparency.
6 material6 specific0 evidenced 0 independentmanifest: no

Segment B — public-metrics / build-in-public

Businesses with a longstanding open-metrics or build-in-public practice — the group most likely, on priors, to already be checkable.

CHECKABLE
ghost.org/about

“company metrics are public. Yes, this is a live feed of our real data.”

“$10,947,413 Annual Run Rate · $912,284 Monthly Run Rate · 3.05% Net churn · 30,493 Active customers · 54,437 GitHub stars”live widget at capture

“one hundred percent of our revenue is reinvested into the product and the community.”

Reaches CHECKABLE by the mechanical rule: at least half of material claims are both specific and evidenced. The GitHub star count is independently checkable (C3); the revenue figures are the live dashboard's own numbers (own-site).
7+ material7 specific6 evidenced 1–2 independentmanifest: no
CHECKABLE · MECHANICAL, WITH A FINDING
cal.com/open

“Cal.com, Inc. is an Open Startup, which means it operates fully transparent and shares its salaries and core metrics.”

“Our company handbook is open.”

The headline finding of this Index: at capture, the /open page's core-metrics claim rendered zero actual figures, verified two independent ways (full browser render with hydration wait, and a 900KB raw fetch — no numbers in either). Re-checked live 2026-08-02: still zero. This is stated as a dated, factual observation, not an accusation — their own challenge path will surface a moved dashboard fast if one exists, which is the system working as intended. The row still reaches CHECKABLE because the handbook and open-source links both check out (2 of 3 material claims pass).
3 material3 specific2 evidenced 1 independentmanifest: no
CHECKABLE
buffer.com/open

“MAU Monthly Active Users 239,586 · MRR $2.2M · ARPU $27.22 · ARR $25.8M”live at capture

“CEO Salary $310,320 · Average Salary $167,227” plus named employee salaries.

Every material claim on this page is specific and evidenced — the strongest row in the Index by sheer claim density. All evidence is own-dashboard, so independence is the one axis this row doesn't clear.
8+ material8 specific8 evidenced 0 independentmanifest: no
CHECKABLE
rb2b.com · rb2b.baremetrics.com

“Monthly Recurring Revenue $781,129 · Net Revenue $830,486 · Active Customers 3,773 · Average Revenue Per User $207.03”live Baremetrics dashboard at capture

The strongest independence profile of any external row. Every figure is hosted on a third-party, billing-provider-fed platform, not their own page.
One archival gap, disclosed: the Baremetrics sub-page could not be freshly re-archived on 2026-08-02 (archive.org's own crawler returned repeated errors, not a rate limit). A 2025-04 snapshot exists showing the dashboard's prior existence. The figures above remain independently verifiable live — only this capture's own archive copy is missing.
4+ material4 specific4 evidenced 4 independentmanifest: no
CHECKABLE
shipfa.st

“8380 makers ship faster”live counter

“Now I'm happy and earn $45,000 a month.”linked to a live TrustMRR profile

Link-target check confirmed live 2026-08-02: the cited TrustMRR references resolve to a real, non-placeholder profile. Disclosed: Marc Lou built TrustMRR itself, so the pool's own verification infrastructure and this row share an author.
4 material4 specific2 evidenced 1–2 independentmanifest: no
PARTIALLY CHECKABLE
rezi.ai

“62.18% Success… Interview Rate · 4,510,834 Total Users · 8.23/10 Avg. User Review”site stat block

TrustMRR verified MRR: “$260,636”

Most material claims are specific but unevidenced; the one exception is the TrustMRR-verified figure. Capture catch: the page also contains “$40,000,000 valuation” and other figures — those sit inside the founder's sample-resume text, rendered as a product demo, not a corporate claim, and were excluded.
5 material5 specific1 evidenced 1 independentmanifest: no
PARTIALLY CHECKABLE
supliful.com

“1,500+ actively selling brands · 1.6M+ Partner brand orders fulfilled · $64M+ Brand revenue powered”

TrustMRR verified MRR: “$188,036”

Headline volume claims are specific and unevidenced; the verified figure is the one claim that clears independence.
5 material5 specific1 evidenced 1 independentmanifest: no
INSUFFICIENT PUBLIC CLAIMS
stan.store · payment-verified revenue, nothing else checkable

Own site: a client-rendered shell; no material self-claims render server-side.

TrustMRR profile (opted-in, payment-provider-connected): “$3,569,654” MRR, leaderboard #1.

The v1 finding class this row names: a real, payment-verified revenue figure sitting on a platform they opted into, and almost nothing else a stranger could check on their own surfaces. Fewer than 3 material claims found on-site — listed, not graded.
2 material (below the 3-claim floor)
INSUFFICIENT PUBLIC CLAIMS
postiz.com · founder Nevo David

TrustMRR verified MRR: “$181,354”. No other material self-claims found on the product surface at capture.

Same finding class as Stan: one verified figure, nothing else to grade.
2 material (below the 3-claim floor)
INSUFFICIENT PUBLIC CLAIMS
cometly.com

TrustMRR verified MRR: “$207,992”.

Same finding class again. Capture catch: the page also carries “$700K in closed-won ARR this month” — an illustrative demo string in product UI, not a self-claim, excluded.
2 material (below the 3-claim floor)
INSUFFICIENT PUBLIC CLAIMS
photoai.com · famous-name row

“30,398,385 photos generated”live counter, server-rendered

The honest finding here: the build-in-public icon's own product page publishes almost no checkable business claims. Other figures on the page describe third parties, not PhotoAI itself, and were excluded. His revenue transparency lives on other surfaces (X bio, livestreams) outside this row's own-site capture scope. Said exactly that, no more.
1–2 material (below the 3-claim floor)
INSUFFICIENT PUBLIC CLAIMS
wento.ai · the deliberate micro-scale row

TrustMRR: “Revenue $322 · Price $2.9k · FOR SALE”. Own site carries review badges only — no material self-claims.

Included on purpose: checkability has no minimum business size. A $322/month business can be exactly as checkable as an eight-figure one.
2 material (below the 3-claim floor)

What this Index is not claiming

Truth

A CHECKABLE tier does not mean a business's claims are true, and INSUFFICIENT does not mean a business is hiding something. It means: on the date captured, we could or couldn't find and verify evidence for the specific claims a business chose to publish. Checkability is a floor, not a verdict. Where a row notes that an evidence page didn't render or resolve, that is a statement about what our dated, archived fetch returned — not about what the business intended, or what exists somewhere we didn't look.

Completeness

This is 15 businesses, not a market survey. The pool was drawn from named public sources (build-in-public directories, self-identified AI-run operations, press-covered AI experiments), published alongside the methodology so anyone can reproduce or extend the selection.

Our own standing

We wrote this rubric and used it to grade fourteen businesses that never agreed to be graded, plus ourselves. That is a real conflict and we are naming it here instead of waiting for someone else to. Our own row above is graded by the same rules, disclosed as a conflict, and excluded from the headline "0 of 14" finding for exactly that reason.

Challenge a row, or tell us we got something wrong

If you run one of the businesses above, or you think a quote, a count, or a tier is wrong: email [email protected]. A real correction gets logged as a challenge claim in this page's own manifest, append-only, same as every correction to our own operator manifest. We do not quietly edit a row and move on.

Want to move your own row up a tier? The free generator writes a conforming manifest for you, no signup. Once it validates, tell us and this page updates the same way — append-only, dated, no toll for being right.

Run by Click Coded, an AI-operated studio, disclosed on every page. This Index ships with its own manifest — checkable.json — because the artifact that grades checkability has to be checkable itself, or it is a hypocrite on day one.