Parcel Carrier Scorecard: How to Measure Who Actually Deserves Your Freight
The operator’s guide to scoring parcel carriers on cost, service, risk and whether they should still be getting the freight next Tuesday.
The carrier review has begun. There are seventeen slides.
Carrier A is green.
Carrier B is also green, although slightly less confidently.
Carrier C has received an amber circle that apparently means “needs attention” but not enough attention to inconvenience anyone.
On-time delivery is 95%.
Claims are down.
Cost is “tracking favourably”.
The account manager says peak was challenging. Everybody nods.
Somebody mentions partnership. Coffee arrives. Meeting ends.
And every carrier receives exactly the same freight allocation next month.
Which raises a small administrative question. What exactly was the scorecard for?
Because a parcel carrier scorecard that records performance without changing a decision is not carrier management.
It is logistics scrapbooking. Nice colours. Interesting memories. Absolutely no authority.
Parcel carrier scorecard: stop grading carriers and start allocating freight
A parcel carrier scorecard should measure the commercial and operational performance of each carrier and convert that evidence into decisions about freight allocation, improvement, contract negotiation and risk.
That final part matters more than the score itself.
Most businesses do not suffer from a shortage of logistics numbers.
They suffer from numbers that have been politely disconnected from consequences.
On-time delivery can deteriorate.
Claims can climb.
Invoice accuracy can develop a creative streak.
Regional performance can fall through the floorboards.
And somehow the carrier still receives the same parcel tomorrow morning because the routing rule was written years ago and nobody wants to start a thing.
That is not a measurement problem. That is a governance problem.
The carrier scorecard should exist to answer one brutally practical question:
Based on what this carrier has actually done, what freight should we trust them with next?
Not last year. Not what the tender promised. Not what the carrier presentation says. Next.
The average carrier is a fictional creature
Here is one of our favourite supply chain magic tricks.
Carrier A achieves 96% on-time delivery.
Lovely.
Meeting adjourned.
Except Carrier A is running at 99% across lightweight metro parcels, 97% across standard residential freight and 86% across bulky regional orders.
The 96% exists mathematically. Operationally, nobody has ever met it.
This is the carrier average alibi.
Take enough good freight and enough ugly freight, blend vigorously, and almost any performance problem can be made to look reasonably presentable.
The same thing happens with cost.
Average cost per parcel: $10.42.
Fine.
Except one freight profile is brilliant at $6.80 and another is staggering around at $19.70 with two surcharges and a look of regret.
This is why a useful parcel carrier scorecard cannot stop at carrier level.
Performance needs context.
Score by the freight characteristics that actually change the outcome.
Metro versus regional.
Lightweight versus bulky.
Standard versus express.
Residential versus commercial.
Peak versus non-peak.
Fulfilment centre.
Service.
Postcode cluster.
Customer promise.
You do not need to split performance into so many microscopic pieces that the scorecard requires forensic equipment.
But you need enough segmentation to expose where the average starts lying.
Because a carrier can absolutely deserve more freight in one part of your network and less freight in another.
That is not inconsistency.
That is intelligent allocation.
Score the promise the customer bought
Parcel carriers are usually measured against transit standards.
The customer does not care about your carrier's transit standard.
They care about the date you showed them at checkout.
Those are not automatically the same thing.
If your website promises Friday and the parcel arrives Saturday, the customer experiences a failure even if somebody internally can produce a PDF explaining why the carrier SLA technically survived.
That is why parcel carrier performance must ultimately reconcile with the customer promise.
Australia Post reported that THE ICONIC achieved 98% on-time delivery against promised windows during Peak 2025 after preparing capacity and fulfilment operations months in advance.
THE ICONIC also reported that slower time-to-door could reduce checkout conversion by 3% to 5% during much of the year and by as much as 10% during gift-giving periods.
That is the commercial connection.
Delivery reliability is not merely whether Transport got a gold star. It affects how confidently the business can sell.
Later cut-offs.
Faster promises.
Peak trading windows.
Customer trust.
Repeat purchase.
That is why on-time performance belongs on the scorecard.
But it belongs there as promise performance, not ceremonial logistics trivia.
Before blaming the carrier, make sure it was actually the carrier
Now we arrive at one of the more entertaining features of carrier scorecards.
Blame.
Warehouse dispatches late.
Carrier gets marked late.
Customer enters the wrong address.
Carrier gets marked late.
Weather closes something important.
Carrier gets marked late.
Customs holds an international parcel.
Carrier gets marked late.
At this point the scorecard is less performance management and more organisational laundry.
A fair carrier scorecard separates carrier-controllable failure from externally-created failure.
That is not being soft.
It is making the data worth using.
ShipMatrix does this in its parcel performance methodology. Its 2025 peak-season assessment excluded delays caused by factors outside carrier control, including weather, incorrect shipper addresses, consignee issues and road closures. That study reported December on-time performance of 97.2% for UPS, 95.3% for FedEx Express and 94.1% for USPS under its methodology.
There is another lesson hiding inside those numbers.
Performance definitions matter.
ShipMatrix noted that differences in carrier commitment rules could materially affect reported on-time results.
So before Carrier A receives 97 and Carrier B receives 94, decide whether both numbers are answering the same question.
Same start event.
Same promised window.
Same exception treatment.
Same stop clock.
Same customer outcome.
Otherwise you are not benchmarking carriers.
You are comparing definitions.
And definitions are wonderfully obedient. They usually tell whoever wrote them exactly what they wanted to hear.
Cost per parcel is not enough
Cost absolutely belongs on a parcel carrier scorecard. But cost per parcel, standing there by itself looking smug, tells you far less than most businesses think it does.
A carrier charging $8.60 per parcel may look like the obvious winner beside one charging $9.10. Right up until the cheaper parcel misses delivery, comes back for another lap, generates a customer service ticket, triggers a refund and sends somebody scrambling for premium recovery freight. Suddenly that 50-cent saving has developed expensive hobbies.
The more useful economic measure is closer to cost per successful outcome. In other words, what did it actually cost the business to complete the customer promise, not merely print the label and get the parcel out of the warehouse?
That means looking beyond base freight and asking what happened afterwards. Re-deliveries, claims, refunds, service credits, customer service intervention, premium recovery freight, invoice disputes, avoidable returns and warehouse rework all have a cost attached. Sometimes the warehouse ends up touching the same problem twice.
Sometimes the customer service team spends 20 minutes rescuing a delivery that looked wonderfully cheap on the carrier invoice. Sometimes an $8.60 parcel quietly becomes a $28 problem.
Not every one of those costs can be tied perfectly to an individual shipment, and they do not need to be. This is not an exercise in accounting origami. The objective is to understand whether the apparent saving survives contact with the actual operation.
That is where a useful parcel carrier scorecard starts connecting carrier performance to Total Cost to Serve. Because the cheapest movement is not automatically the lowest-cost logistics decision. A carrier can win the rate comparison and still lose the business money once failed delivery, recovery effort and customer impact walk through the door.
Cost still matters. Quite a lot, actually.
It just should not get the trophy until we know what happened after the parcel left the building.
Measure what happens when things go wrong
Every carrier looks competent when the parcel behaves itself. The scans appear, the truck arrives, the doorstep does its job and everybody gets to admire the on-time delivery percentage.
The interesting bit starts when normal breaks.
A parcel misses a scan. A delivery attempt fails. Freight sits in a depot longer than it should. A carton arrives looking like it has spent the afternoon negotiating with a forklift. A customer starts asking questions. Or a postcode disappears into some regional Bermuda
Triangle that was mysteriously absent from the tender presentation.
What happens next tells you far more about a carrier than the original failure.
This is where a useful parcel carrier scorecard should measure recovery behaviour.
How quickly was the exception identified?
How long did it take the carrier to tell you?
Was the information actually useful, or did you receive the logistical equivalent of “something has happened somewhere”?
Did somebody take ownership?
How quickly was the problem resolved?
Most importantly, did the carrier recover the shipment before the customer had to become your exception-management system?
Because two carriers can produce exactly the same exception rate and create completely different outcomes for the business.
Carrier A might have a 3% exception rate, but identifies problems early, communicates clearly and recovers most shipments before the customer even knows anything went sideways. Carrier B might also have a 3% exception rate, but appears to have adopted silence as an operational philosophy. The customer notices first. Your service team starts chasing. The warehouse gets involved. Eventually somebody asks the carrier what is happening and receives an answer containing the words “we are investigating”.
Same exception percentage. Very different carrier performance. Very different cost to the business.
That is why a mature scorecard measures more than failure frequency. It also measures failure containment: how effectively the carrier detects, communicates, owns and resolves the problem before one operational wobble becomes a customer problem, a service ticket, a refund or tomorrow morning’s escalation meeting.
On-time delivery tells you how the carrier performs when everything goes according to plan.
Failure containment tells you how expensive they become when it doesn’t.
Claims are not just a percentage either
Claims rates can be wonderfully reassuring little numbers.
Carrier A has a 0.6% claims rate. Carrier B has 0.8%.
Carrier A wins.
Maybe.
Because before we hand over the trophy, there are a few rather important questions hiding behind those decimal places.
What were they carrying?
What was the value of the freight being damaged or lost?
Was the same SKU appearing again and again?
Was there a pattern by depot, lane, service or handling point?
How long did claims take to settle?
Were claims actually paid, or simply closed?
Was the damage caused by carrier handling, packaging, warehouse processes or some spectacular collaboration between all three?
Were legitimate claims being rejected because somebody upstream had failed to photograph, document or retain the evidence required to support them?
A low claims percentage does not automatically mean loss and damage are under control. Sometimes it means the carrier is performing brilliantly. Sometimes it means the products being moved are difficult to damage. Sometimes it means the business has quietly stopped lodging claims because recovering $37 requires six emails, three attachments and the patience of a medieval monk.
The percentage alone cannot tell you which one you are looking at.
A useful parcel carrier scorecard should therefore look at claims through three lenses: frequency, severity and resolution.
Frequency tells you how often things are going wrong. Severity tells you whether the problem is an occasional cracked $12 item or a $4,000 shipment disappearing into the logistics afterlife. Resolution tells you what happens once the problem exists: how quickly the carrier responds, whether liability is accepted, how long settlement takes and how much internal effort is required to get there.
Because one $4,000 loss and forty $12 annoyances are not the same operational problem.
The forty small claims might point to a packaging issue, repeated handling damage or a SKU that should never have been travelling through that network in its current form. The single large loss might expose a very different problem involving security, chain of custody, service selection or carrier suitability.
And that is the real job of the scorecard.
Not to produce a beautifully coloured claims percentage for the monthly meeting, but to tell you what is breaking, where it is breaking, what it is costing and whether anybody is actually fixing the cause.
Averages are useful.
Context is what stops them lying to you.
Invoice accuracy belongs on the scorecard
We have already pulled apart the ugly little world of billing leakage in the Parcel Freight Invoice Audit, but invoice behaviour should also sit inside the carrier performance record.
Because delivery performance does not magically become irrelevant the moment the parcel reaches the doorstep and the invoice arrives wearing a completely different personality.
A carrier might hit its delivery targets beautifully, but if every billing cycle sends Finance into forensic mode trying to work out why the rate card, surcharge schedule and actual invoice appear to have been introduced by three different people at three different companies, that carrier is still creating operational cost.
A useful scorecard should therefore ask:
Did invoices match the agreed rates and commercial terms?
Were fuel, residential, oversize, remote-area and other surcharges correctly applied?
Could additional charges actually be supported?
How often were credits required?
How quickly were credits processed?
How often did disputes occur?
How long did those disputes take to resolve?
How much internal time was spent proving something the contract had already agreed?
Because commercial execution is still execution.
A carrier with occasional billing errors that acknowledges them, fixes them quickly and processes the credit without requiring a six-part documentary series may present far less commercial risk than a carrier with fewer apparent errors but a dispute process capable of ageing everyone involved by several fiscal years.
And this is where invoice accuracy becomes more than a Finance metric.
Repeated billing errors can expose weak rate governance, poor system configuration, contract interpretation issues, incorrect shipment data or surcharges quietly doing cartwheels through the invoice unnoticed. Left unchecked, those problems can turn a great negotiated rate into a much less impressive actual cost.
So yes, invoice accuracy belongs beside delivery performance, claims and recovery behaviour on the scorecard.
Not because Finance deserves another coloured box in the monthly report.
Because commercial friction is still carrier performance, and somebody is paying for it.
Tracking data has to earn points too
There is another carrier metric quietly becoming much more important: data quality.
And no, having a tracking page with a blinking parcel icon does not automatically qualify.
The question is whether the carrier's data is accurate, timely and useful enough to actually run the operation.
A serious scorecard should ask:
Are scans happening when they should?
Are milestones consistent and correctly sequenced?
Are exceptions coded accurately?
Can the business tell the difference between “in transit” and “we haven't heard from this parcel since Wednesday”?
Can carrier events flow cleanly into the TMS, WMS, 3PL platform, customer communications and reporting environment?
Can the data trigger action before the customer discovers the problem?
Because unreliable tracking data does not remove the work.
It simply relocates it.
Suddenly Customer Service becomes the tracking system. Operations starts manually checking carrier portals. Somebody builds another spreadsheet. The customer refreshes the tracking page twelve times and eventually becomes the first person in the supply chain to identify the exception.
None of these are particularly impressive technology architectures.
The real value of visibility is not knowing where a parcel was six hours ago. It is knowing enough, early enough, to do something useful next.
Good carrier data buys the business decision time. It allows exceptions to be identified earlier, customers to be contacted proactively, alternative action to be taken and recovery to begin before the problem starts breeding emails.
Poor data does the opposite. It waits quietly until the customer rings and says, “So… where is it?”
That is why data quality deserves a proper place on a parcel carrier scorecard, particularly when multiple carriers are competing for allocation inside the same customer promise.
Because if two carriers offer similar rates and similar delivery performance, but one gives you clean, timely, actionable data while the other communicates largely through digital smoke signals, they are not delivering the same service.
Stop giving every metric an equal vote
Here comes another wonderfully democratic scorecard mistake.
On-time delivery: 20%. Claims: 20%. Cost: 20%. Invoice accuracy: 20%. Data quality: 20%.
Everybody gets a biscuit.
But why?
If late delivery causes ten times more commercial damage than invoice administration in your operation, why have those two metrics been given exactly the same authority over the decision? Because the spreadsheet looked tidier that way?
Carrier scorecard weightings should reflect business consequence, not mathematical politeness.
What matters most will depend entirely on the operation. A retailer hanging its customer promise on next-day delivery may give much more weight to on-time performance and first-attempt delivery. A business moving high-value products may care far more about loss, damage severity and claims resolution. A low-margin ecommerce operation shipping enormous parcel volumes may need cost, surcharge accuracy and invoice leakage to carry considerably more weight.
Different customer segments may even need different priorities inside the same business.
A carrier might therefore be assessed differently depending on whether it is servicing:
next-day metro ecommerce
bulky residential deliveries
high-value products
regional and remote customers
low-margin, high-volume parcels
returns or reverse logistics
That is not scorecard inconsistency.
That is the scorecard finally acknowledging that freight is not one giant beige parcel.
SupplyChainBrain has made the broader point that scorecards are more useful when metrics connect to business outcomes, focus on measures that genuinely matter and reflect operational priorities.
Transport Works would push that thinking one step further.
Do not start by asking:
“What should a normal carrier scorecard weight?”
Start by asking:
“What hurts this particular business most when logistics gets it wrong?”
Then work backwards.
What costs revenue?
What damages margin?
What generates customer complaints?
What creates rework?
What threatens retention?
What sends Operations, Finance or Customer Service into unnecessary recovery mode?
Weight the things capable of doing real commercial damage.
Otherwise you can build a beautifully balanced scorecard that gives a minor billing annoyance the same voting rights as a service failure capable of losing a customer.
The maths will be immaculate.
The decision will still be stupid.
Beware the giant score
Once every metric has been measured and weighted, another very tempting creature appears.
The giant carrier score.
Carrier A: 92. Carrier B: 88. Carrier C: 81.
Excellent. Somebody colour the cells green, amber and red and we can all go home.
Except that single number can quietly rebuild exactly the problem we have spent the rest of the scorecard trying to remove.
Carrier A might score 92 because exceptional metro performance mathematically cancels out dreadful regional performance. Carrier B might finish on 88 overall while being significantly better suited to bulky residential freight. Carrier C might look average across the entire network while outperforming everybody on one lane, service profile or customer segment that actually matters enormously.
Carrier A | Carrier B | |
Overall score | 92 | 88 |
Metro parcels | 99% | 96% |
Regional parcels | 86% | 95% |
Claims severity | High | Low |
Exception recovery | Slow | Fast |
Cost per successful outcome | $11.80 | $10.90 |
Decision | More metro. Less regional. | More regional freight. |
Carrier A “won” the scorecard. Carrier B still deserves the regional freight.
Averages have an impressive talent for introducing freight that should never have met.
The composite score is useful. It gives you orientation. It helps identify movement over time and makes broad carrier comparison easier. But it should never become a substitute for allocation logic.
Think of the total score as the front door, not the entire house.
Open it. Then start looking around.
A useful scorecard should help answer:
Where is this carrier genuinely strong?
Where is performance deteriorating?
Which freight profiles suit its network best?
Which lanes, regions or customer types expose weaknesses?
Where are exceptions clustering?
Is performance improving or quietly sliding backwards?
Where does another carrier perform better under genuinely comparable conditions?
Should this carrier receive more freight, less freight or simply different freight?
That final question is where the scorecard earns its keep.
Because the objective is not to announce that Carrier A has beaten Carrier B by four points and present them with an imaginary logistics trophy.
The objective is to decide which carrier should move which freight, under which conditions, for which customers, and why.
That turns a parcel carrier scorecard from a reporting exercise into routing intelligence.
And that is a much more useful thing to have than a giant number wearing a green box.
The carrier needs to see the rules too
A scorecard should not be an ambush.
If Carrier A believes “on time” means one thing and you secretly measure another, the QBR will achieve very little beyond generating disagreement.
Define the measures.
Define the exclusions.
Define the source data.
Define the thresholds.
Define the commercial or allocation consequences.
Then share them.
Good carrier management is not about constructing a trap.
It is about making performance expectations so clear that arguments about definitions stop consuming the meeting. That also creates a healthier relationship.
Carriers can see where they are winning.
Where they are losing.
Where improvement would earn more freight.
Where something outside their control is distorting the data.
Accountability works much better when everyone knows where the goalposts are and nobody quietly moves them after kickoff.
Parcel carrier scorecard checklist: does this carrier actually deserve the freight?
Scorecard check | What you should be measuring | The red flag | What it should change |
Customer promise | Delivery against the date or window promised to the customer | Carrier SLA says “on time” while the customer experience says otherwise | Service selection, routing or allocation |
Cost to serve | Freight cost plus surcharges, redelivery, claims, refunds, recovery freight, rework and service effort | The cheapest label keeps creating expensive problems | Carrier allocation by freight profile |
Controllable performance | Carrier-attributable failures using consistent definitions and exclusions | Weather, bad addresses or warehouse delays are being counted as carrier failure | Clean the data before scoring |
Failure containment | Exception detection, notification speed, ownership and recovery time | The customer discovers the problem before you do | Recovery plan or reduced allocation |
Claims performance | Frequency, severity and resolution | Claims look low only because recovery is slow, painful or routinely rejected | Restrict high-risk or high-value freight |
Invoice accuracy | Rate compliance, surcharge accuracy, credits, disputes and resolution time | Finance is repeatedly proving what the contract already says | Commercial review or system correction |
Tracking and data quality | Scan completeness, event accuracy, exception coding and system integration | Operations is manually checking portals because the data cannot be trusted | Data remediation or reduced reliance |
Segment performance | Metro/regional, bulky/lightweight, service, postcode, fulfilment centre and customer type | One national average is hiding ugly pockets of performance | Allocate freight by segment, not carrier average |
Business-weighted scoring | Metrics weighted according to actual commercial consequence | Every KPI receives the same vote because the spreadsheet looks tidy | Reweight the scorecard around what genuinely hurts |
Trend, not snapshot | Whether performance is improving, deteriorating or repeating the same failure pattern | A carrier stays green because last quarter was good | Intervention before the problem becomes structural |
Shared rules | Agreed definitions, data sources, exclusions, thresholds and consequences | Every QBR begins with an argument about what “on time” means | Fix governance before debating performance |
Decision attached | A clear consequence for strong or weak performance | Scores move. Freight does not. Nothing changes. | More freight, less freight, different freight, recovery plan or commercial review |
The test that matters
If you can tick every measurement box but cannot answer what should change next, you do not have a carrier scorecard.
You have a very organised report.
Scorecard to Decision.
NOW WHAT?
Strong performance → Earn more suitable freight
Segment weakness → Reallocate that freight profile
Deteriorating trend → Improvement plan
Repeated failure → Restrict service or lane
Commercial leakage → Contract / invoice review
No improvement → Rebalance the network
Your carrier scorecard should make somebody slightly uncomfortable
That might be the cleanest test of whether the thing is actually working.
A useful carrier scorecard should occasionally force a decision somebody would rather not make.
The familiar carrier loses freight.
The cheapest carrier does not win it.
The more expensive carrier gets a particular segment because, once failed deliveries, claims, rework and recovery are counted, it is actually the cheaper option.
A long-standing default gets questioned.
A regional weakness can no longer hide inside a flattering national average.
A carrier relationship everybody likes suddenly has to explain some data nobody does.
That discomfort is not the scorecard failing.
That is the scorecard finally earning its keep.
Because parcel carrier management is not about producing a league table, colouring the top row green and congratulating whoever survived the spreadsheet.
It is about continuously deciding which carrier deserves which freight, under which conditions, for which customers, based on what the network is actually doing now.
That means the scorecard should occasionally trigger something tangible:
freight moves
allocation changes
a carrier goes onto a recovery plan
a service gets restricted
a lane gets reassigned
a commercial conversation gets brought forward
a long-standing assumption gets retired
If none of that ever happens, there is a fair chance the scorecard has become part of the furniture.
So stop asking:
“Which carrier scored highest?”
Ask instead:
“What should change because of what we just learned?”
Because that is the question that separates measurement from management.
If the answer is nothing, close the spreadsheet. Save everybody the meeting. And call it what it is.
A report. Not a scorecard.
Transport Works. Because Your Supply Chain Won’t Fix Itself.
If the scorecard made you uncomfortable, keep reading.
INSIGHTS FROM DANYUL GLEESON, FOUNDER, CLUSTER-FREIGHT-FIXER & LOGISTICS CHAOS TAMER-IN-CHIEF AT TRANSPORT WORKS
Danyul Gleeson has spent 25+ years collecting the kind of supply chain scar tissue nobody puts on a capability statement.
He has seen the dashboards that looked magnificent while the operation underneath them quietly caught fire, the freight contracts that were apparently “great deals” until somebody read the surcharges, and the logistics problems everybody kept managing because nobody stopped long enough to ask why they existed in the first place.
As Founder of Transport Works, Danyul works across freight optimisation, 3PL management, warehousing and fulfilment, logistics technology, visibility, KPI reporting and supply chain performance across Australia, New Zealand and the USA.
He has a fairly low tolerance for supply chain theatre and a habit of finding the one loose bolt everybody else has been stepping over.
The Freight Files is where Danyul calls out what he is seeing now, what matters next and which logistics problems are quietly getting expensive while everyone else is still talking about them in meetings.
No recycled industry theatre. Just what’s changing, what’s getting expensive, and what’s worth fixing before the answer becomes obvious.
What’s Actually Running Your Parcel Strategy?
Beyond the Rate Card
Sources & References
FreightWaves / ShipMatrix, January 2026. Used to validate current parcel on-time performance during the 2025 U.S. peak season and, more importantly, to demonstrate how carrier performance methodologies exclude non-controllable events and can differ according to service commitments.
Australia Post / THE ICONIC, Peak 2025 case study. Used to validate the commercial connection between fulfilment and delivery reliability, promised delivery windows and ecommerce trading performance.
SupplyChainBrain, Building a Carrier Scorecard That Actually Changes Behavior, June 2026. Used to validate current carrier scorecard practice around metric selection, weighting, cadence and connecting scores to commercial consequences and freight allocation.
GoodShip, What Is a Carrier Scorecard?, June 2026. Used to validate current market practice around segmenting carrier performance, maintaining current visibility between formal reviews and connecting scorecards to carrier awards and routing decisions.
Disclaimer:
The information in this blog is provided for general informational purposes only and is current as of the date of publication. Customs duties, charges, processes, policies, and rates are subject to change at any time without notice. We make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability of the information contained in this article. You should not rely on this content as a substitute for official sources. For the most up-to-date and authoritative information, please consult the relevant government agencies, customs authorities, and reference websites directly. Ideas, interpretations, and opinions expressed here are subject to change as regulations, markets, and industry practices evolve. Transport Works and its authors accept no liability for any loss or damage whatsoever arising from reliance on the information in this blog.
Comments