Methodology

We make every reasonable effort to ensure that specifications published on this site are supported by an identifiable source. We do not treat patterns, automated matches, search snippets, or information copied from another site as sufficient evidence on their own.

Where a figure is recorded, we aim to attach the source, the source’s own words quoted verbatim, and where in the source the supporting information can be found.

A value without supporting evidence is not intended to be recorded as verified. A quotation that does not actually support the value it is attached to should not be accepted as evidence.

These requirements are built into the research and database tooling wherever possible. Nevertheless, mistakes can happen. If we have recorded something incorrectly, we want to know so that we can review the evidence and correct it.

A database that is 99% right is not 99% as useful as one that is right. A reader who finds one wrong figure has no way to know which of the others to believe, so one bad voltage discredits every voltage. That is why coverage grows slowly here: the alternative is a bigger catalogue that is worth less.

It is not a theoretical concern. One brand’s listing gave a battery as 15.63 Ah and 750 Wh; the brand’s own page said 21 Ah. The 15.63 had been produced by dividing the motor’s 750 W by the pack’s 48 V, and the 750 Wh was that same wattage relabelled — so multiplying the two back together returned 750 and every arithmetic check passed. It understated the battery by a quarter and only reading the page caught it.

Every compatibility row carries one of these, and they are ordered. Nothing is promoted because a specification happens to match.

• OEM — the manufacturer identifies this battery as the one for this exact model.
• Manufacturer documented — manufacturer documentation states the compatibility explicitly, without being the model’s own page.
• Vendor explicit — an authorised vendor or a marketplace listing states it explicitly. Never inferred from a seller merely stocking both items.
• Figures compared — neither manufacturer has named the other. One publishes what the device requires — a system voltage, a minimum capacity, a current it must be able to draw — the other publishes what the battery does, and we have set the two side by side. The comparison is ours, and so is any mistake in it. Rows at this tier print both makers’ figures so you can redo the arithmetic, and they print the ones that do not meet as readily as the ones that do.
• Physical match — real specifications line up, and nothing states compatibility. This is not a recommendation.
• Unverified — there is not enough evidence. This is the honest floor.

Where this catalogue sits on that scale today: the rows released so far sit at manufacturer documented, and figures compared. Every other rung on this scale is either unused or awaiting a release decision, and the scale is printed in full so that when a row appears you can see which rung it is on rather than taking a badge on trust.

A physical match is not compatibility. Two packs of the same voltage and capacity in the same case can differ in discharge limit and pin assignment — one manufacturer in this catalogue sells eight packs in one enclosure at two different voltages. Where we know packs share only a shape, the page says so and prints each one’s own figures beside it.

UL 1973 is a battery standard, IEC 62619 covers lithium cells in industrial use, and EN 300 328 is a radio standard about the wireless link in a trolling motor’s remote. They are different claims about different things, and none is ever treated as evidence for another.

• Manufacturer claim — marketing text says “certified”, with no document or number.
• Document claim — a real manual, spec sheet or declaration of conformity states it. Note that a declaration of conformity is issued by the manufacturer about itself.
• Independent source — a document written by the certifying body, with a certificate number.
• Verified record — confirmed against the certifying body’s own register.

Nothing is promoted between these automatically. Most certification claims on the internet are the first tier, and we label them as such even when the manufacturer is almost certainly telling the truth.

Recall records come from the regulators themselves — the US CPSC, the UK’s OPSS, the EU Safety Gate, Product Safety Australia, Health Canada and France’s RappelConso — through their own official data, never scraped from a summary site.

A regulator’s machine-readable feed is a summary of the notice, and the two do not always agree — one national feed lower-cases every word it returns, another has returned a headline with a word missing. Where they differ, the published notice is what we take, and it is the notice’s address that each recall page links.

We also hold records from Transport Canada. None has yet been read and decided to be in this catalogue's subject, so none of them appears on this site — a record we hold and have not reviewed is not a record we publish.

Matching a recall to a product is done with a controlled confidence scale, and only exact and likely matches are shown publicly. A weaker match keeps its record internally rather than putting a hedged warning on a page it may not concern; hedging does not make a jacket-battery recall useful on a battery page.

A recall’s own scope travels with it. Most recalls cover particular serial numbers, colours or purchase dates, and where the notice says so the page shows that text and tells you to check your own unit. The absence of such a marker never means your unit is unaffected — only that the notice we read did not state a limit.

Where nothing matched, the page says no matching record was found in the available data for that jurisdiction. It never says the product is safe.

Manufacturers contradict themselves more often than you would expect, and the honest response is to publish the disagreement rather than quietly pick a side. One manual states a pack as “48V 13Ah, 768Wh” — but 48 × 13 is 624, the part number in the same line encodes 13 Ah, and two sibling manuals print 624 Wh for the identical part. That is recorded as the manufacturer’s error, with the evidence, and the catalogue keeps 624.

Where we genuinely cannot tell, nothing is changed and the conflict is recorded. Where a manufacturer’s own figure is simply unusual — several brands rate pack energy slightly above nominal volts × amp-hours — we keep their figure rather than replacing it with our arithmetic.

Manufacturers delete pages constantly — a model is discontinued, a site is rebuilt, a spec sheet is quietly corrected — and when that happens every quote taken from it becomes unverifiable. So we keep our own copy of the documents we cite, with the date we took it and a cryptographic hash of the bytes.

Each figure names its source beside it, written out in full as plain text rather than as a link. The address is the manufacturer’s own, so it can be opened directly and a fact checked against its origin, which is stronger than checking it against us. If that address no longer works, ask: where we hold a copy of what we read, we will supply it.

We do not use an AI model as a source of truth. Language models are used to extract text from documents and to flag contradictions; they never decide that something is compatible, safe or certified, and nothing reaches a page because a model proposed it.

We do not generate product images, invent part numbers, fabricate reviews or ratings, or publish a specification we could not attribute. We do not present ourselves as the seller of anything.

Every figure on a product page carries its source. Open it. If the source does not say what we say it says, that is a defect and we want to know — write to us through the contact page and it will be corrected.

Please read this alongside the Disclaimer, which explains the limits of everything above. Verify anything here against the manufacturer’s own documentation before you buy, fit or charge anything.