Pre-visit transparency
Website and menu information, scope of gluten-free claims, contact routes, current availability and clear limitations before a diner arrives.
Developing GCSI Index
Show the evidence behind a restaurant’s gluten-free claim.
The GCSI Index is a developing, research-informed framework for assessing and communicating restaurant practices relevant to people with celiac disease.
Purpose
Decision support and improvement—not a safety guarantee.
The Index is intended to help diners inspect the available evidence and help restaurants identify practical opportunities for improvement. It is not a medical guarantee, governmental inspection, accredited certification or promise that every future meal will be free from gluten exposure.
Every public result should show what was assessed, when it was assessed, which methodology version was used, what evidence was available, what was outside scope and when reassessment is due.
Assessment structure
Seven dimensions across the dining journey.
The dimensions are being developed from systematic review evidence, food-service practice and stakeholder input. Each dimension contains observable, documentable or testable indicators.
Staff knowledge and communication
Role-specific understanding, escalation of uncertain questions, order identification and communication between front-of-house and kitchen teams.
Kitchen cross-contact controls
Storage, preparation areas, hands, clothing, surfaces, utensils, fryers, grills, cooking water, cleaning and service handover.
Ingredient and supplier verification
Product specifications, recipe records, labels, substitutions, supplier changes and the process used when information is incomplete.
Risk communication and disclaimers
Whether public and staff communication is specific, proportionate and consistent with the controls that can actually be demonstrated.
Monitoring, testing and reassessment
Training records, internal checks, incident review, corrective action, optional testing and periodic reassessment of practices.
Consumer experience and response
Structured diner experiences, restaurant responses, complaints, corrections and how lived experience informs review without automatically becoming verification.
Indicator scale
Each item shows the strength of the available evidence.
The public interface should use clear text first. Numbers may support analysis, but they should never appear without an explanation.
0 · Not demonstratedRelevant information or supporting evidence was unavailable.
1 · Self-reportedThe restaurant described the practice, but stronger supporting evidence was not reviewed.
2 · DocumentedWritten procedures, records or other supporting materials were reviewed.
3 · Independently reviewedStronger independent evidence was available, such as observation, knowledge testing, monitoring or applicable laboratory information.
Two separate status systems
Assessment lifecycle is not the same as evidence strength.
A restaurant can have a current assessment while individual dimensions contain limited or unavailable evidence. Conversely, a previously strong result may no longer be current after its assessment period expires.
- Assessment lifecycle: not assessed, scheduled, in progress, assessed, improvement underway, reassessment due, under review, suspended, expired or archived.
- Dimension evidence: not demonstrated, self-reported, documented or independently reviewed, with relevant descriptors where applicable.
Public restaurant profile
The explanation should sit close to the result.
A single overall score cannot communicate the full context. The public profile is designed to keep scope, evidence, limitations and dates visible.
Assessment record
Date, methodology version, service scope, assessor role and next review date.
Dimension results
Plain-language evidence level, supporting information and the date each area was reviewed.
Strengths and improvement areas
What is currently supported, what has changed and what practical actions remain.
Community context
Recent diner experiences, restaurant responses and concern-review status, clearly distinguished from assessment evidence.
Independence and governance
Payment cannot purchase a better result.
Restaurants may pay for assessment, training, reassessment and platform services. The evidence result must remain methodologically independent of the commercial relationship.
The framework will include version control, assessor competence requirements, corrections, appeals, conflict-of-interest disclosure and a visible changelog. Major methodology changes should be documented before they affect public comparisons.
Development status
The Index is not yet a final certification scheme.
The framework remains under development and requires expert review, stakeholder consultation, pilot testing, reliability assessment and revision before broader use. Early results should be labelled as research or pilot outputs.
Evidence → Improvement → Confidence
A transparent path from assessment to action.
The Index is valuable only when it helps a diner make a clearer decision and helps a restaurant understand what to strengthen next.