01 · Verify dimensions and weight against the carry test.
A tool that stays home fails regardless of quality. Published specs are checked, and pocketability is judged against real pockets and real daily routines — not renders.
Methodology · version 1.1
Carry value, not pocket clutter
Version 1.1 took effect September 22, 2026. This transparency revision adds the two-score policy; it is not a silent rewrite. It applies to every EDC review, guide and comparison.
02 · Separate materials claims from durability evidence.
“Aerospace titanium” names a material; scratch resistance, thread longevity and clip fatigue come from owner reports over months. We report what the material is and what owners say it survives.
03 · Check carry legality before recommending daily carry.
Blade and tool laws vary by country, state and city, and locking mechanisms face restrictions in some places. Articles flag the check rather than assuming the reader’s jurisdiction.
04 · Judge overlap, not just quality.
A multitool earns its place by replacing separate items, not by duplicating tools the reader already carries. Scores reflect the carry system as a whole, not the spec sheet in isolation.
What we check in edc
Weight and dimensions: total kit budget in grams and millimeters; the pass/fail test is whether the full loadout disappears into pockets and gets carried without thought.
Materials and construction: what the material actually means for weight, corrosion resistance and longevity — and which parts (threads, clips, hinges) owner reports say fail first.
Carry-law compatibility: flagged per product type so readers check local rules before making a tool a daily habit.
Power for electronic EDC: USB-C versus proprietary charging, self-discharge rates, and whether a keychain light will work after two months in a drawer.
Owner-report longevity: long-term threads on pocket clips, pivots and finishes — the unglamorous parts that decide whether a tool lasts years or months.
Replaceability economics: EDC gets lost and worn out; value includes how painful — and how expensive — replacement is.
Scoring gate
Hands-on lab-test score: Reserved for products the editorial team has physically tested under a documented setup — never inferred from specifications.
Research-based editorial score: Editorial judgment from published review consensus, specification analysis and third-party hands-on reports — explicitly not a lab-test result. It mirrors the article’s relative ranking and cited trade-offs; products without a genuine differentiating basis are marked Not scored.
Why versioned and dated
A methodology nobody maintains becomes decoration. Ours are versioned and dated so readers can see exactly which practices applied to which article — and so we cannot silently rewrite the rules after the fact.
The standard is evidence honesty: report the sources reviewed, label manufacturer claims, and never imply hands-on testing or measurements that did not occur. What supports each conclusion should be visible in the article or its linked evidence.