DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
Rock Identifier: Stone ID
Next Vision Limited · Education

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 sources1,062 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-05
 Which version this describes

App Store

This analysis describes version 2.22.2 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 2.22.2, updated 2026-09-23.

Google Play

This analysis describes version 2.4.3 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 2.4.3, updated 2026-09-24.

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.

States a price, or offers a one-time purchase
Measuredfrom the app's own on-screen textartefact ad3cf198551c…
The app's own text offers a one-time or lifetime purchase, or reviewers report that the price is stated clearly.
What we saw: Offers a one-time or lifetime purchase: "Pay a one-time fee to receive access to this exclusive theme for 1 month! (no recurring charges)"
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 4

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: Aggressive ad load
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the app's own on-screen text.artefact ad3cf198551c…
Advertising volume or placement that interrupts normal use: ads between every action, unskippable or forced full-screen ads.
What we saw: Progress is gated behind watching an ad: "Watch ad to get result"
Reported by users: Paywall blocks the basics
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
The core of the app — not extras — sits behind payment, or previously-free function moved behind a paywall.
What we saw: Paywall blocks the basics: raised by 8 distinct reviewers (1.5% of 542 reviews scanned)
In the app's own text: A plan is pre-picked as 'recommended'
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the app's own on-screen text.artefact ad3cf198551c…
The purchase screen arrives with one plan already framed as the recommended or most popular choice, so the default is the app's preference rather than the user's. We do not compare the plans' prices, and only the app's own text evidences this, so it is shown, but never counted as a charge.
What we saw: Purchase screen steers the choice: "MOST POPULAR"
In the app's own text: Countdown-timer purchase pressure
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the app's own on-screen text.artefact ad3cf198551c…
The app's own purchase copy attaches a deadline to buying — a countdown, 'offer ends in', 'limited time' — or ships a countdown view on a purchase-screen layout.
What we saw: Deadline pressure in the app's own copy: "Offer ends in"

What reviewers said

Verbatim excerpts from public store reviews, shown as corroborating user reports. They are not Appworthy audit evidence, and a quotation is not proof of the finding it sits under.

Paywall blocks the basics

This app sucks — This app sucks because you have to pay for it and they make you pay for every single thing even though it’s free you have to pay for everything as soon as you scan the rock they make you pay seven dollars a rock. It’s not…

1★ · App Store · 2026-08-18

I don’t like this app — I don’t like this app because you have to pay for everything!

1★ · App Store · 2026-08-03

Stuuuuuupiiid:( — U have to Pay for everything you you only have two picks a day and various answers apparently but not to me there isn’t very many answers it doesn’t tell you how much it cost and also you have to pay to get any like good…

1★ · App Store · 2026-07-19

What this app sells

Every purchase the store discloses. Store listing
 What this app sells

From the store listing. Billing terms are read from each purchase’s name — the stores don’t publish them — so treat them as a strong hint, not a disclosure.

Show 5 more purchases we couldn’t categorise

These are really on sale; we just can’t tell from the name whether they recur.

Rock Identifier PremiumTerm not stated$39.99
Rock Identifier PremiumTerm not stated$3.99
Rock Identifier PremiumTerm not stated$7.99
Rock Identifier PremiumTerm not stated$29.99
Rock Identifier PremiumTerm not stated$69.99
This list is cut off. Apple shows at most 10 in-app purchases, and this app is at the limit — so it very likely sells more than we can see.
Google Play doesn’t publish per-purchase prices, so this list covers the other store only.

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 2026-10-05 Version analyzed: 2.22.2 (App Store), 2.4.3 (Google Play)6 independent signals1,062 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.