Research contribution
Structured ratings, answers, and narrative supplied for BuilderStudy’s research record.
Draft — Legal Review Required
Research participation terms — working draft.
This page organizes proposed expectations for people contributing homeowner and buyer experiences to the BuilderStudy pre-MVP.
Not an agreement yet. This is a planning outline, not final or effective participation terms and not a substitute for legal advice. Eligibility, consent, withdrawal, content-use, incentive, and dispute language still require counsel review before launch.
Purpose and scope
What this draft is trying to clarify.
The final version should distinguish basic research participation, optional verification, and any separate permission to publish a story excerpt.
Verification context
Optional or requested information that may help assess whether a contribution is credible and relevant.
Public-use permission
A proposed separate decision for any identifiable or quoted story content considered for public use.
Proposed participant expectations
Firsthand, accurate, and safe to share.
These expectations are candidates for the final participation terms; wording and enforceability remain under review.
Speak from relevant experience
Contributions should reflect a genuine builder, home, warranty, HOA, buying, or community experience the participant can reasonably describe.
Provide accurate context
Participants should avoid knowingly false, misleading, impersonated, duplicate, or materially incomplete submissions.
Leave out risky information
Participants should not include passwords, financial-account data, medical details, confidential documents, or unnecessary personal information about others.
Keep language constructive
Threats, harassment, discriminatory attacks, spam, promotional manipulation, and unsupported accusations may be excluded under the planned moderation process.
Have authority to share
The final terms should address age, ownership, tenancy, agency, and authorization requirements without assuming one rule fits every module.
Understand publication is not guaranteed
A contribution may be reviewed, withheld, aggregated, edited for safety, or excluded from public reporting under rules still being finalized.
Planned consent checkpoints
Separate decisions, explained at the right moment.
The final flow should use plain-language checkpoints rather than treating one submission button as blanket permission for every possible use.
Submit to the private research layer
Explain what will be collected, why it is requested, and which fields are optional before a participant submits.
Provide verification material
Explain the requested evidence, handling limits, and alternatives before any upload or verification step.
Consider a public excerpt
Seek specific permission before using a participant’s narrative as a public quote or attributed story.
Design principle: Aggregate reporting and excerpt permission should remain distinct. A participant’s rating may be eligible for an aggregate while their written story remains private unless the final reviewed terms and consent flow allow otherwise.
Open legal and operational decisions
Items that must be resolved before these terms become effective.
This status list is intentionally visible so the draft does not imply that unsettled rules are already approved.
Minimum age and participant eligibilityCounsel review
License and ownership language for submissionsCounsel review
Correction, withdrawal, and deletion request processProcess design
Moderation, appeal, and dispute pathwayPolicy design
Incentive, drawing, or compensation rulesIf introduced
Final privacy notice and service-provider disclosuresCross-review
Pre-MVP orientation
Review the research topics without treating this draft as consent.
The survey hub shows the planned modules. Any live participation flow should present finalized, legally reviewed terms at the appropriate checkpoint.