Evidence philosophy
Why every Interlace product ships with measured comparisons instead of marketing claims.
Most plugin READMEs say things like "faster", "lighter", "more secure" without saying "than what" or "by how much." Interlace doesn't.
The contract
Every comparative claim across every Interlace product must:
- Name what it's compared to (the alternative, with a specific version).
- Cite a versioned result file (a JSON benchmark, a measurement script).
- Be reproducible by anyone who clones the repo.
If a claim cannot meet all three, it doesn't ship.
Where claims appear
Each product's docs have two canonical pages:
- A landscape page — the comparison table for that product, backed by versioned benchmark result files.
- A how-we-measure page — the methodology: what each metric means, who's in the comparison set, why the rubric is fair.
This apex site aggregates them in the cross-product landscape and explains the shared rubric in how we measure.
Why this is hard but worth it
It would be much easier to write "blazingly fast" without measuring. But:
- Users have been burned too many times by README claims that don't survive their actual workload.
- The discipline of having to measure forces real design decisions during development, not after.
- A versioned benchmark ages well — a vague claim doesn't.
The contract is the same one every Interlace product agrees to follow — see how we measure for the four-axis rubric and what reproducibility means in practice.