AI audit vs rubric — Yakkyo
An independent Workers AI LLM scored Yakkyo against the same published rubric. The deterministic rubric result is our canonical score. The LLM's result is shown here as a sanity check — never mixed into the scoring formula.
| Dimension | Rubric | LLM | Δ (LLM − Rubric) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pricing transparency | 100 | 95 | -5 |
| Business transparency | 100 | 95 | -5 |
| Shipping clarity | 92 | 85 | -7 |
| Public reviews | 84 | 84 | 0 |
| Product range | 95 | 92 | -3 |
| Access & onboarding | 95 | 60 | -35 |
| Support track record | 82 | 82 | 0 |
| Store integrations | 72 | 40 | -32 |
| Overall | 92 | 77 | -15 |
What this means: Strong agreement — the rubric appears well-specified. Median per-dimension |Δ| ≤ 5.
Median per-dimension |Δ| = 5.
Yakkyo scores high on pricing transparency (95) due to visible source prices. Business transparency is also high (95) as it is publicly listed with an ISIN and audited annual report. However, access is lower (60) because a free plan requires signup, and a demo is available but not a free trial. Support is decent (82) with mostly positive feedback, but integration is lower (40) with only two native integrations.This is the LLM's own explanation, not editorial commentary from SupplierSpy. The LLM result is a sanity check on the rubric — never mixed into the scoring formula.