DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
Patreon
Patreon · Lifestyle

We analyzed this app across 6 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.

Nothing unfair corroborated · unauditedConfidence: High6 signal sources913 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-06
 Which version this describes

App Store

This analysis describes version 126.41.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 126.41.0, updated 2026-10-05.

Google Play

This analysis describes version 126.38.0.14 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 126.39.0.15, updated 2026-09-25.

What the analysis found

Each finding shows what agreed and how strongly. Automated analysis

Positive evidence 2

Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.

No advertising SDKs
Measuredfrom SDKs in the app packageartefact 16454ddb6e6d…
No advertising or mediation SDK of any kind was found in the package.
What we saw: No advertising or mediation SDK among the 7 SDKs detected in the package
Developer says data deletion can be requested
Measuredfrom the store listingview evidence
The developer's data-safety disclosure on the store states that users can request deletion of their data, or the app's own text offers a way to delete the account. This restates what the developer declares; it is not a test of whether deletion works. Apple publishes no equivalent disclosure, so on an Apple-only listing only the app's own text can support it.
What we saw: The developer's store data-safety disclosure states that data deletion can be requested; we have not seen a deletion control in the app's own text

One source only — shown, not confirmed 2

A single kind of evidence. We publish these because withholding them would be the bigger distortion, and we do not treat any of them as a finding we stand behind.

In the app's own text: Hard to cancel
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the app's own on-screen text.artefact 16454ddb6e6d…
Cancelling the subscription is blocked, hidden, multi-step, or simply does not take effect.
What we saw: Sells a subscription in-app but ships no cancel or manage-subscription text of its own, leaving the store's settings as the only exit
In the app's own text: Trial terms not stated in the app's own text
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the app's own on-screen text.artefact 16454ddb6e6d…
The app's own screens offer a free trial without stating, beside it, what happens when the trial ends. Read this as context rather than as a charge: renewal terms are normally shown on the store's purchase sheet instead, which we cannot see, and we can only observe one kind of evidence for this — so it is shown, but never counted as a charge.
What we saw: Offers a free trial ("Free trial needs a tier") with no renewal price, renewal date or auto-renew notice anywhere in the app's own text

How the automated analysis works

Automated, corroborated, and never human-reviewed without a person.

This assessment is produced automatically. Six independent signals are read — user reviews, SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text, the app manifest, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure — and each candidate finding is filed under the sources that support it.

No charge stands on one kind of evidence — with one published exception. A finding is either a measured fact that anyone can reproduce (an ad SDK is in the package; every subscription bills weekly; the privacy label omits a tracker we can see), or it is an interpretation — and an interpretation needs independent sources to agree before it reaches the catch list. The exception is a harm only users can see: a charge may publish from reviews alone, as “Reported by N users”, once enough reviewers raise it to clear that charge’s own published bar. That agreement rule is what replaced the human reviewer, not a model’s confidence.

There is no overall score, on purpose. A 0–99 number was published here until 2026-09-15. It was withdrawn because it discriminated too weakly to be the instrument — 44.7% of every pair of apps tied — and because a single number is a verdict where a count is an observation. What publishes instead is a row of measurements, each of which says what was counted and, where we could not look, says that instead.

Findings under One source only are real reports we do not stand behind as findings. They are shown because withholding them entirely would hide a genuine complaint, and labelled because publishing them as charges would be an accusation off a single source.

 Not yet human-reviewed

Several measurements above say “Not assessed” because no artefact we hold can answer them. A human review is what resolves those — and it can remove a favourable band as easily as add one.

Hands-on inspections are not yet open.

 How this page was produced
Analyzed 2026-10-06 Version analyzed: 126.41.0 (App Store), 126.38.0.14 (Google Play)6 independent signals913 reviews scannedConfidence: HighNot human-reviewedVocabulary v1.13Methodology v1.3
Signals run: user reviews, SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text, the app manifest, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure.