How we calculate the Trust Score

Zero ambiguity. The full formula, the indicators we publish, and how they translate into a risk band. Published and auditable.

Three weighted pillars

The Trust Score is a weighted average of three components. Each component is independent and has its own indicator set on a 0–100 scale.

Compliance and Legal Certainty · 40%

These 8 indicators are our disclosure framework: each is marked verified, pending verification, or not applicable for every developer, against public sources. The Compliance score moves only on verifiable signals (PROFECO complaints and conciliations, RPCA adhesion-contract registration, per-project municipal permits, and official irregularity flags). A missing data point is shown as “pending verification” — never counted as a pass.

1. PROFECO Buró Comercial — complaint, conciliation, and arbitration counts
2. PROFECO — share of complaints resolved in favor of the consumer
3. Municipal construction licenses per project
4. Land-use certificate and utility feasibility
5. Environmental Impact Statement (MIA) where applicable
6. Federal SEMARNAT permits in coastal or protected zones
7. Adhesion contract registered with PROFECO
8. Compliance with NOM-247-SE-2021 (mandatory clauses)

What moves the Compliance number

Full transparency: the Compliance score starts from an unverified baseline (55/100) and moves only on verifiable public evidence. We never reward missing data.

• Per-project permits (c8–c11) → Each confirmed municipal permit adds; a permit reported as rejected subtracts.
• PROFECO complaints — Buró Comercial (c1) → A verified record with no complaints adds; a high complaint volume subtracts.
• Conciliation rate (c2) → If most complaints in conciliation resolve in the consumer’s favor, it adds; otherwise it subtracts.
• RPCA-registered adhesion contract (c14) → PROFECO reviewed and struck abusive clauses before inscription → adds.
• Irregularity flags → A shut-down project caps Compliance at 25; suspended subtracts 20 (see Red flags).

We only measure what open public data lets us verify (PROFECO + SEDETUS). Indicators that require private documents or gated lookups (SAT, INSEJUPY, notarial records) are not here — we prefer a short, honest framework over a long checklist with boxes that never fill.

Track Record and Performance · 35%

14 operational indicators. We combine what the developer reports with physical verification of delivered projects and warranty data.

1. Continuous years operating under the same legal name
2. Number of verifiable delivered projects (site visit or registry)
3. Total units delivered vs promised
4. On-time delivery rate (no delay > 60 days)
5. Average delay across delayed projects
6. Geographic diversification of the portfolio
7. Project mix: residential, commercial, mixed-use
8. Share of abandoned or cancelled projects
9. Compliance with 5/3/1 warranties (structure/waterproofing/installations)
10. Formal claims for structural defects
11. Claims for non-conformance with specifications
12. Documented unilateral changes to the project mid-construction
13. Historical liquidity to cover payroll and subcontractors
14. Active institutional financing capacity

Public Reputation · 25%

15 indicators weighted with Bayesian smoothing to resist low-volume manipulation, plus external sources that always carry weight even before Shield My Field has reviews.

1. Verified reviews (with proof of purchase) on Shield My Field
2. Bayesian-smoothed average rating
3. Verified review volume (more volume = more weight)
4. On-time delivery sub-rating in reviews
5. Build quality sub-rating in reviews
6. Customer service sub-rating in reviews
7. Value-for-money sub-rating in reviews
8. Recent catastrophic reviews (knockout if 3+ with under 2 stars)
9. Google Business rating and volume
10. Facebook page rating and volume
11. Media sentiment in specialized press
12. Mentions in buyer forums and Yucatán communities
13. Recent reputational crisis (scandal, negative exposure)
14. Developer responsiveness to reviews (transparency)
15. Pattern vs isolated incident in similar complaints

Irregular, suspended, or shut-down projects

When a Mexican authority officially publishes that a project is irregular, suspended, or shut down, we apply a published discount to the developer's Compliance score. The rule is transparent and auditable.

• Shut down → Compliance capped at 25/100. Total score drops to High Risk band.
• Suspended → Compliance reduced by 20 points (min 0).
• Irregular without shutdown → No automatic discount; appears as a visible red flag on the profile.

Evidence rules

• Every flag requires official folio, notice date, and public URL (gob.mx or other authority).
• The developer is notified by email and has a 7-day grace window before the flag becomes publicly visible.
• The developer's right of reply is always published alongside the flag.
• If the authority lifts the shutdown/suspension, the flag is marked "cleared" and the score is recalculated.

Browse the SEDETUS Quintana Roo public registry for irregular developments outside the curated catalog.

Four risk bands

The final Trust Score number maps to one of four bands to make it actionable. Bands are color-coded across the platform.

How much we know, measured apart from the score

The Trust Score says how well a developer answers the questions we ask of it. The Data Confidence Index (ICD) says how many of those questions we could answer at all. They are different things and we publish them separately: a 70 built on eight answers is not the same as a 70 built on two. The index counts determinate answers, never lookups — searching a registry for a developer and not finding them is not knowledge.

• Compliance (40%): checklist indicators resolved (55%), identity confirmed in PROFECO’s Consumer Bureau (30%), an official irregularity registry covering their state (15%).
• Track record (35%): corporate age known (50%), projects published on the platform (50%).
• Reputation (25%): a rating sample of at least 5 (50%), verified reviews (50%).

When a developer has no measurable reputation, the score spreads that weight across the other two pillars so it stays a whole number. The index does not: a narrowed evidence base is exactly what it exists to report.

What is active and what is declared

Publishing a methodology means also saying which parts of it do not run yet. This table is the real state of every parameter: which moves the score today, which moves it partially, and which is declared because we want to measure it but has no public source we can consult without guessing. A parameter with no source weighs zero; it is never estimated or filled in.

Per-project score (independent of the developer score)

Each individual development gets its own 0–100 score. Useful to compare projects from the same developer and identify differences between, say, a flagship tower and a satellite project. Four components:

• Project regulatory compliance (license, MIA, land-use): 35%
• Construction progress against the promised schedule: 25%
• Financial safety and investment vehicle (trust, escrow): 20%
• Developer backdrop (the developer current Trust Score): 20%

B2B services for developers

Developers can buy three optional services: portal subscription, lawyer audit by PeninsuLawyers, and sponsored placement. None of the three alters the Trust Score, which is computed solely with the public methodology above.

Brokers and property listings

Brokers and agencies publish third-party inventory and are excluded from the Trust Score and developer rankings — a listing receives no trust rating. When a listing is linked to an assessed development, the Trust Score shown is the project developer's, not the property's or the broker's. The "Featured" listing is paid advertising, not a recommendation. We do not verify individual listings.

Ready to evaluate a developer with this methodology.