Scope: "Tampons" — internal disposable menstrual tampons (applicator and non-applicator). Siblings feminine-pads and menstrual-cups are separate catalog leaves, out of scope.

Seed: (1) tampons equivalent of steel_hardness is absorbency_rating — a numeric (grams) spec that is literally one side of the FDA-documented trade-off against TSS risk. (2) A wear/serviceability-minded persona would check applicator_type and string/material construction first, not the printed absorbency number, since leaks and discomfort usually trace to how the compressed core unfolds (axial vs radial) and where the withdrawal cord is sealed, not to the absorbency grade alone.

Sources:
[fda_801_430] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2023-title21-vol8/xml/CFR-2023-title21-vol8-sec801-430.xml — FDA absorbency gram ranges and terms — fetched excerpt: "6 and under / Light absorbency ... 15 to 18 / Ultra absorbency"
[fda_801_430] same — TSS incidence 1-17 per 100,000/yr, minimum-absorbency and pad-alternation advice — fetched excerpt: "estimated incidence of TSS of 1 to 17 per 100,000"
[wikipedia_tampon] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampon — rayon/cotton-blend majority, organic-cotton marketing, digital vs applicator insertion categories — fetched excerpt: "majority of tampons sold are made of blends of rayon and cotton"
[wikipedia_tampon] same — FDA absorbency table reproduced verbatim (corroborates fda_801_430), EDANA European droplet system as alt standard
[wikipedia_tss] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_shock_syndrome — "4 to 8 hours" change interval; TSS incidence "one to 17 of every 100,000" (corroborates fda_801_430) — fetched excerpt: "Try to keep up with changing a tampon every 4 to 8 hours"
[wikipedia_tss] same — later meta-analysis found material composition (rayon vs cotton) not directly correlated with TSS, contradicting Tierno's earlier claim — judgement source
[tampax_sitemap] https://tampax.com/sitemap.xml — product-line structure: cardboard-applicator line, Pearl/Radiant plastic-applicator lines, Compact Pearl/Compact Radiant telescoping applicators, Starter Kit, duo/trio multi-absorbency packs
[tampax_pearl] https://tampax.com/en-us/all-products/pearl/regular-tampons/ — 5 absorbency levels, "up to eight hours," "made without perfume," OEKO-TEX Standard 100 (1,000 substances), FDA biocompatibility
[tampax_compact] https://tampax.com/en-us/all-products/compact-pearl/regular-tampons/ — compact applicator "extends to make it a full-size applicator"; go up/down an absorbency guidance
[lola] https://mylola.com — "100% GOTS certified organic cotton," plastic compact applicator, light/regular/super/super+ sizes, no toxins/dyes
[cora] https://cora.com/products/applicator-free-tampons — 100% organic cotton, "without pesticides, dioxins, fragrance, or chlorine," cotton string with paraffin-wax coating, absorbency grams matching FDA table exactly (corroborates fda_801_430), tapered no-applicator tip
[global_standards_gots] https://global-standards.org/our-standards/gots — GOTS certifies organic-textile processing incl. chemical inputs and wastewater (corroborates lola's GOTS claim)
[oeko_tex] https://www.oeko-tex.com/en/our-standards/standard-100-by-oeko-tex — Standard 100 tests 1,000+ harmful substances, tiered by skin-contact intensity (corroborates tampax_pearl's "1,000 substances")

Branches: applicator_type -> digital_no_applicator makes applicator_size_profile irrelevant, per wikipedia_tampon ("digital tampons inserted by finger" vs applicator tampons) and cora (applicator-free line has no size-profile SKU split). material_composition -> rayon_cotton_blend makes organic_certification irrelevant, per lola/cora only certifying their 100%-organic lines while wikipedia_tampon notes blended tampons are the uncertified majority.

Noise (spec-sheet rows left out): price/pack price (tampax, lola, cora all list it) — price is never a facet per rule. Pack count/box size — quantity, not expertise. "Anti-Slip Grip"/"LeakGuard Braid"/tapered-tip marketing names (tampax_pearl) — single-brand marketing terms, no second independent source found (kotex.com and ob.com blocked by bot-detection/empty JS shell), folded into applicator_type's why_experts_care instead of a standalone facet. Tampon tax / period poverty (wikipedia_tampon) — policy, not a product spec. Lifetime-use count and cost-per-tampon figures (wikipedia_tampon) — not used since price is excluded. Outer-box recyclability (tampax_pearl, "Tampax boxes are recyclable") — generic CPG cardboard-box packaging claim that reads unchanged for any boxed product, fails the unrelated-category test; distinct from packaging_wrap (individual wrapper) and disposal_guidance (used-tampon disposal), so left out rather than folded into either.

Corrections (2026-10-26): Narrowed applicator_type's then_ask branch to plastic_applicator only — fetched tampax.com/sitemap.xml live, found no compact/telescoping SKU on the cardboard line, so cardboard_applicator no longer routes to applicator_size_profile; updated that facet's backfill_note to match. Added vocabulary entry for "Totally chlorine-free (TCF)," the term bleaching_process's own why_experts_care already used without a definition. Added value not_sure_yet to absorbency_rating and a branch routing it to user_experience_level, for first-period buyers who don't know their flow yet; updated the split question and facet cold_start_question to offer that option. Added new facet applicator_plastic_safety (values bpa_free_claim/none_stated) plus a BPA vocabulary entry and reference nymag_best_tampons, sourced from nymag.com/strategist/article/best-tampons.html (fetched live) which headlines "Veeda 100% Natural Cotton Compact BPA-Free Applicator Tampons" as a distinct differentiator from chemical_safety_certification (core-fiber) and material_composition (core fiber, not applicator plastic); single-sourced, matching the existing single-evidence pattern on applicator_size_profile/packaging_wrap/disposal_guidance. Rejected the outer-box-recyclability coverage finding — added to Noise above with the exclusion reason stated, as the checker's own borderline note required. Rejected the "slim vs compact plastic applicator" second-axis finding (checker flagged it as lower confidence): fetched nymag live, found "slim-applicator" used only in reviewer language about insertion ease/grip, not a stated width/diameter spec on any brand's own page (tampax_compact, lola, cora); treating as marketing language for the existing length-only full_size/compact_telescoping axis, not adding a second facet.