A screenshot can prove that an offer exists. It cannot, by itself, prove that the offer is public, reproducible, or available to another applicant.

That is why offer channel is a core fact—not a footnote.

Each channel answers a different question

  • Public web: what a reader can reach without an invitation or account context.
  • Referral: what appears through an eligible cardholder’s referral path.
  • Targeted: what an issuer shows to selected people or accounts.
  • Branch or mailer: what requires a physical location or invitation code.
  • Account-specific: what appears after sign-in and may depend on customer history.

Putting all five in one ranking turns availability into guesswork.

Reader reports are discovery, not publication proof

Reader reports can reveal a change quickly. Before a material claim moves into a verified ledger, the channel, timestamp, requirements, exclusions, and source need independent review.

Personal details, account numbers, barcodes, referral identifiers, and invitation codes must be redacted before a report is stored or shared.

Comparisons should stay like-for-like

A public offer should be compared with past public offers. A targeted record can have its own history, but it should not make a broadly available offer look weak simply because most readers cannot access it.

This also applies to bonus structure. Points, statement credits, free-night certificates, and incremental category earning are not interchangeable without showing the conversion assumptions.

Bottom line

Separate ledgers make the site less dramatic and more useful. Readers can see what exists, who can realistically access it, and which historical comparison actually supports the headline.