We apply the Software Fit Standard: start with a buyer job, define the evidence boundary and publish reasons to choose and reject.
1. A URL must own a distinct decision
We reject pages that merely exchange a vendor, industry or company-size variable without changing the workflow, exception, criteria and conclusion.
2. Evidence hierarchy
- Regulators, statutes and standards bodies for requirements.
- Official vendor documentation for product claims.
- A documented, reproducible test only when one was actually run.
- Secondary review platforms for market orientation, never as our factual source of record.
3. Criteria for Point-of-sale systems
- software scope and register workflow
- hardware ownership and compatibility
- payment processor choice and lock-in
- card-present and keyed-payment workflow
- offline mode and recovery behavior
- funding and chargeback operations
- inventory and catalog depth
- tips, tabs, tables, and service workflow
- employee roles and shift controls
- multi-location administration
- accounting and ecommerce integrations
- implementation, migration, and support model
4. Picks, prices and no false precision
Rankings and verdicts are editorial opinions: we name a pick, an order and who should skip each product, and we say why. We publish a price only as the vendor publishes it on its own pricing page, with its unit and the date we read it; when a vendor shows no number we say it is quote-only instead of estimating. We do not invent ratings, review counts, customer counts or test results. A feature labeled compliant by a vendor remains a vendor claim unless the relevant authority proves the conclusion.
5. Maintenance
Sources carry a verification date. Product, pricing and regulatory changes reopen the affected page rather than silently changing a network-wide template. See the public framework changelog.
Applying the Software Fit Standard is an editorial commitment, not an official certification, accreditation, product approval or guarantee of end-to-end testing.