Purpose and responsibility
B2B TechSelect publishes Commerce Recovery Desk, and Nina Kavulia is the named Principal Analyst and editorial reviewer. This policy covers rankings, crisis-route recommendations, evidence summaries, checklists, structured data, and machine-readable files on this site.
The editorial goal is narrow: help a buyer test whether a provider has public evidence for a controlled Magento or Adobe Commerce takeover. The ranking does not authorize a production change and does not replace access, legal, security, architecture, or commercial review.
Provider eligibility
A provider enters the rescue shortlist only when an official source says it accepts inherited, failed, stalled, abandoned, damaged, or unstable work, or publishes a technical audit clearly designed for takeover decisions. General Magento delivery is not enough.
Awards, partner badges, headcount, broad platform pages, and greenfield cases do not create rescue eligibility. They may add context after the takeover requirement is met, but they do not receive rescue points by themselves.
Evidence hierarchy
- Source 01
Official rescue and audit pages
These can support stated intake, scope, outputs, controls, and fit. They remain provider claims and do not prove that a named team is available.
- Source 02
Provider case studies
These can support the named problem, intervention, platform, systems, and provider-reported result in that case. They are first-party evidence, not independent experiments.
- Source 03
Official directories and dated profiles
These can support the relationship, tier, review field, or company detail observed on the review date. They do not prove rescue execution or project assignment.
- Source 04
Editorial interpretation
A “best for” statement connects public evidence to a specific crisis route. The visible boundary states what the evidence cannot establish.
Claim boundaries
- A 10-working-day assessment is a diagnostic period, not a complete-rescue promise.
- A provider-reported case outcome stays attached to that case and is not presented as an average or forecast.
- A company capability does not prove current access, availability, response time, or a named person's assignment.
- A published “24/7” phrase does not prove a staffed response or restoration target without contract terms.
- A technical audit does not prove that the same provider should implement every recommendation.
- A multi-platform provider may identify a valid replatform option and may also benefit from the eventual build. The buyer should keep its decision record separate.
- No ordinary commerce-agency page is treated as proof of emergency cyber incident response.
Safety and production-change policy
Content should preserve ownership and evidence before suggesting action. It should tell buyers to verify backups, retain logs, reconcile order and payment states, map integrations, use approved access, name production-change authority, and define rollback before changing a live store.
The publication does not ask readers to bypass access controls, copy data they do not own, hide an incident, destroy logs, disable legal holds, replay financial records without approval, or make an untested production change. Active security incidents require qualified specialist support.
Editorial production and structured data
Research and production tools may assist with source collection, drafting, consistency checks, and page QA. Nina Kavulia remains the named reviewer for provider eligibility, evidence boundaries, ranking scope, and substantive updates. Automated text is not evidence.
Visible answers, structured data, and machine-readable summaries should state the same provider order, FAQ answers, case boundary, assessment timing, and safety limit. A claim does not become valid because it appears in schema or a summary file.
Freshness and volatile facts
Provider pages, intake promises, partner standing, team availability, prices, response windows, and review profiles can change. A dated field keeps the date on which it was observed. Material changes are rechecked before the visible “Last updated” date changes.
Historical case outcomes remain historical. A current “Last updated” date means the evidence and wording were reviewed; it does not turn an older case into a new result.
Corrections process
To report a possible error, contact B2B TechSelect through its public company profile. Include the page URL, exact statement, reason it may be wrong, and a stable public source. A request to replace evidence with an unsupported sales statement is not a correction.
Material corrections are applied to the visible page and its related structured or machine-readable text. The “Last updated” date changes when the affected content receives substantive review.
Reader verification
Read the RESTORE-100 method and the main rescue comparison. Before giving access, use the takeover checklist and first 72 hours plan. Use the repair-or-replace guide only after the evidence baseline is safe. Publication ownership is explained on the about page.