Identify the organization said to have granted authorization, then locate the agreement or written confirmation covering your actual merchant entity, products, channel and current period. A purchase invoice establishes a purchasing record; by itself, it does not establish permission to make the broader affiliation claim. Keep the public statement within the documented grant. If the grant is missing, expired or narrower than the wording, remove or narrow the unsupported statement while the specific condition is resolved.
For: A research-only merchant that describes itself as an authorized reseller, distributor or partner on its own website.
Read the claim as a visitor encounters it, including the organization named beside it and the page where it appears. A statement in a sitewide header can appear to cover the whole store. A statement beside one product may describe a narrower relationship. Record the exact words and their placement before deciding what evidence would answer them.
Match the merchant named in the authorization record to the business operating the site. Keep the authorizing organization separate from a wholesaler, marketplace or other supplier named on a purchasing record. If authorization came through an intermediary, locate the record establishing what that intermediary could grant. An invoice from that intermediary does not resolve that question on its own.
Compare the grant with the products and places it covers
Read the agreement and amendments together. Identify which product lines, territories, domains or sales channels the authorization names. Check whether the wording you want to publish is covered by those terms. Permission concerning one product line does not supply evidence for a claim spanning other products merely because they share a supplier.
Treat silence as an unresolved condition. A purchasing relationship, permission to reproduce an image and authorization to describe the business as a partner answer different questions. Keep a reference to the clause or written confirmation for each one you intend to claim. If wording is ambiguous, seek a specific clarification from the organization rather than expanding the statement yourself.
The FTC's truth-in-advertising guidance supplies the general basis for this comparison: advertising, including website advertising, must be truthful, nonmisleading and appropriately substantiated. It does not grant reseller status, interpret your contract or establish that a particular phrase is lawful. This worksheet compares evidence with copy; it is not a legal test supplied by the FTC.
Check whether the authorization still covers today
Record the effective date, any end date and conditions affecting continued authorization. Read actual renewal, suspension or termination communications alongside the original agreement. A file retained from an earlier relationship can document that earlier period without supporting a present-tense statement today.
If no end date is stated, record that fact; do not invent one or translate it into permanent authorization. A change of merchant entity, product range or selling domain is a reason to compare the grant again. Keep an unconfirmed condition visible and assign a person to resolve it before relying on the claim.
Choose wording from the evidence you can retain
Keep a claim only to the extent the record supports the named relationship, scope and period. Narrow it when the agreement covers less than the current wording. Remove the affiliation statement when there is no supporting grant or the relationship has ended. Replacing one unsupported label with another partnership label does not repair the missing evidence.
After an authorized edit, check the affected product pages and shared banners or footers carrying the same statement. Retain the public URL, wording reviewed, supporting record reference and decision date. That connects the correction to a real page without publishing the private agreement.
For a Prism website-review consultation, provide the public pages and explain which affiliation wording needs review. Scope, fees and terms are agreed before work. Contract interpretation belongs with qualified counsel when needed; a website review does not grant authorization or decide processing eligibility. Keep private agreements and sensitive records out of the ordinary inquiry.
Authorization claim record
Complete one copy for each distinct public authorization claim. Use document references rather than uploading agreements. A match in all relevant rows supports retaining only the recorded scope; a missing or conflicting row identifies wording to narrow or remove pending clarification.
Worksheet entries are not submitted by Prism’s worksheet and are not saved by the site. Use record types, availability, anonymized observations, or match/mismatch results. Do not enter government identifiers, customer names or addresses, customer messages, receipt-access links, card or bank details, passwords, or keys. Send sensitive documents only through the provider’s verified secure channel.
Authorization claim record. The last column is for temporary notes.
Check
Evidence to compare
Decision the comparison supports
Your record
Named organization
Evidence to compareCompare the public organization name with the grantor in the agreement; identify any intermediary and its documented authority.
Decision the comparison supportsResolve a different grantor before attributing authorization to the public name.
Merchant covered
Evidence to compareMatch the business operating the domain to the recipient in the grant and amendments.
Decision the comparison supportsA record for a different entity leaves this merchant's authorization unconfirmed.
Exact claim and location
Evidence to compareCopy the published wording and public URL; note whether placement appears to cover one listing or the whole store.
Decision the comparison supportsReview the claim visitors see, including the scope implied by its placement.
Agreement scope
Evidence to compareReference the clause covering products, territories, domains, channels and permitted public wording.
Decision the comparison supportsLimit the statement to the grant; record a silent term as unresolved.
Valid period
Evidence to compareReference effective and end dates, renewal terms and any later suspension or termination notice.
Decision the comparison supportsDistinguish a historical relationship from a current authorization.
Unconfirmed condition
Evidence to compareName the unanswered condition and the person responsible for obtaining clarification.
Decision the comparison supportsDo not describe the condition as satisfied before there is an answer.
Publication decision
Evidence to compareRecord retain, narrow or remove, affected URLs and the date the page was checked after an edit.
Decision the comparison supportsClose the record when the published wording matches the supported decision.
These are temporary notes. Leaving or reloading this page may clear them. Worksheet entries are not sent automatically. If you copy notes into the consultation message and submit the form, Prism receives them as part of your request.
Limits
A purchase record alone is not evidence for every authorization or affiliation statement.
FTC guidance does not interpret the agreement or make a specific phrase lawful; legal questions require advice on the actual facts.
Authorization from a supplier or brand does not establish product legality or payment-provider approval.
FTC truth in advertising — checked 2026-09-28. Website advertising must be truthful, nonmisleading and substantiated. This general principle does not establish a merchant's authorization or the lawfulness of a specific phrase.
Prism solutions — checked 2026-09-21. A consultation sets the pages and questions for a website review; scope, fees and terms are discussed before work. Legal questions go to qualified counsel and eligibility decisions stay with the provider.