Our evaluation method
The selector is intentionally conservative. It separates headline machine capacity from the evidence that applies specifically to stair climbing.
1. Rated capacity is a hard ceiling
A model cannot be eligible for a load above its verified rated capacity. But rated capacity alone does not prove that the same load is suitable on stairs.
2. Contextual stair evidence is required
For an eligible stair result, we require a verified contextual stair-load record that matches the modeled operating context. Where the source distinguishes one operator from two operators, or uses manufacturer load-position zones, those distinctions remain part of the decision.
3. Missing evidence is not filled with assumptions
If the necessary contextual stair limit is unavailable, the result is treated as insufficient evidence rather than eligible. We do not substitute a headline capacity figure for missing stair-specific evidence.
4. Conflicting claims are isolated
When first-party sources disagree on a specification and the conflict cannot be safely resolved, the conflicting field is not forced into a single invented value. The selector only uses the fields required for a result when their evidence contract is satisfied.
5. Public results require verified records
Draft model records are excluded from public selector results. An eligible result also requires the matching contextual stair-limit record to be verified.
6. Commercial offers do not determine eligibility
Availability, seller relationships and affiliate economics are kept separate from the safety-oriented eligibility decision. Results are not commercially ranked.
Source preference
Primary manufacturer pages, manuals and manufacturer technical documents are preferred when establishing model specifications and contextual stair limits. Evidence is retained so that the basis for a stored claim can be reviewed again later.
See the Affiliate Disclosure for how commercial relationships are separated from this methodology.