Ghost Hydration

Screening model notes

How Nutri-Score, NOVA, and list length read this record

This label lands in the third of four positions on the published scale. What separates that position from its neighbours is arithmetic rather than judgement: identical inputs run through the documented weighting always arrive at the same place. Anyone who works the calculation through by hand, using the methodology write-up together with the itemised ratings further down, will reproduce this number exactly — which is the reason for publishing a computed figure instead of an opinion.

This label falls in the fourth Nutri-Score band. The model arrives there when its penalty terms — energy density, sugars, saturated fat, sodium — carry more weight in the calculation than the fibre, protein and produce content it credits. The band covers a wide span of the points scale, so position within it is not visible from the letter alone. The grade reflects the declared nutrition panel and is unrelated to the additive ratings listed below, which come from different bodies applying different criteria.

The declared list parsed into a small number of components. On a short list the registry screen covers close to everything the packaging declares, and any single matched component accounts for a correspondingly large share of the composite. Short lists also leave less room for parsing error, since there are fewer separators and qualifiers for the extraction to resolve.