Mycorrhizal inoculant / mycorrhizal-network claim evidence-literacy audit — national.

How this work is done

A documented method, so this packet comes out the same whoever does it.

Bring

• The claim itself: a product label, product webpage, or the specific media article/venue making the claim
• A way to save or screenshot the claim's exact source
• Access to this standard's two cited papers (or their verified abstracts/summaries) to transcribe the matching finding
• A notebook or form to record the claim, its category, and the verdict

Steps

1. 1. Pick ONE specific claim to check — not a vague impression, an exact sentence from a product label, a product website, or a media article about mycorrhizal fungi.
2. 2. Record the claim verbatim along with its exact source (label photo/URL, or the article title, author, publication, and date).
3. 3. Categorize the claim: a commercial-inoculant-viability/efficacy claim (e.g. 'guaranteed to colonize roots,' 'boosts yield'), or a common-mycorrhizal-network behavior claim (e.g. trees 'communicate,' 'share resources,' or 'warn' each other through fungal networks).
4. 4. For a product-viability claim, transcribe the matching finding from Koziol et al. 2025 verbatim: the 302-trial figure, the <12% both-viable-and-beneficial figure, the 63% laboratory-grown comparison, or the ~$876M-of-$995M estimated-waste figure, whichever matches the specific claim being checked — never summarized from memory.
5. 5. For a CMN-behavior claim, transcribe the matching finding from Karst et al. 2023 verbatim: the 'insufficiently supported' verdict on CMNs being widespread, the 'roughly equal evidence for helping or hampering' finding from the 26-study seedling-transfer review, or the 'not backed up by a single peer-reviewed, published field study' verdict on tree-to-tree warning signals, whichever matches.
6. 6. Record a verdict: supported (the claim matches a finding the cited paper actually reports), contested (mixed or roughly-equal evidence), or no published evidence (the paper explicitly states none exists) — always naming the specific citation and figure the verdict rests on.
7. 7. Write the record's closing line to keep two things explicitly separate: the underlying mycorrhizal symbiosis is real, well-documented biology, and this one specific marketing or media claim about it is, or is not, what the cited evidence actually supports.
8. 8. If the claim came from a product the person already purchased and they want to know whether IT specifically is viable, do not test it here — route to a university plant-pathology or soil-testing lab for actual colonization/viability testing.

What counts as done

• One specific claim recorded verbatim, with its exact source (a product label/website URL, or the media article/venue it appeared in)
• The claim categorized as either a commercial-inoculant-viability/efficacy claim or a common-mycorrhizal-network behavior claim
• The matching published finding transcribed verbatim from the standard's own cited source (Koziol et al. 2025 for a product-viability claim, Karst et al. 2023 for a CMN-behavior claim) — never summarized or paraphrased from memory
• A verdict recorded as supported / contested (mixed evidence) / no published evidence, naming the specific citation and figure it rests on
• The record explicitly separates 'the underlying mycorrhizal symbiosis exists and is well established' from 'this specific claim about it is/is not supported' — the two are never blurred together

Proof is measured against these, not judged by taste.