365 Everyday Value Organic Instant Oatmeal · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

365 Everyday Value Organic Instant Oatmeal

Name: 365 Everyday Value Organic Instant Oatmeal
Brand: 365 Everyday Value
SKU: 0099482419905

The nutrient profile looks comparatively strong based on the available evidence.

Nutrition score

/100

Nutrition interpretation

Low signal

The nutrient profile looks comparatively strong based on the available evidence.

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives More from 365 Everyday Value Suggest correction

Signal classes

Supporting factors

Fiber (12.5 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Protein (12.5 g/100 g) provides limited support to the nutrition score.
Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut content (100%) supports the nutrition score.

Need attention

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.

Uncertain or missing data

Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut share was inferred heuristically.

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

Supporting factors

Declared NOVA group 1 anchors the processing indicator.

Uncertain or missing data

The processing indicator is inferred rather than declared directly.

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

Need attention

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (50%).

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

Structured source data

Facts used for scoring

Design

CategoryFood

Label information quality56/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Minimally processed · Limited estimate

Formulation complexity

Food score panel

Five-layer evaluation

Each dimension stays separate so the product can score well in one area and weakly in another without hiding trade-offs.

Nutrition score

/100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 80/100

Strong

processing is the strongest signal right now, while label quality needs the most caution.

Strongest area

Processing

Weakest area

Label quality

Data confidence

low

Data confidence

Data confidence 42/100

Low reliability

Data coverage is limited and the result should be interpreted with caution.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The result is strong and supports a positive overall assessment.

Nutrition profile

Strong

80/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Minimally processed

Minimally processed · Limited estimate

100

Processing indicator is available, but part of the classification is inferred.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Mixed

56/100

Label quality reflects completeness and consistency of the record, not nutrition quality.

How is the score built?

Open the methodology note

Nutrition score measures nutrient profile only. Processing, environment, label quality, and data confidence stay separate so missing data or formulation signals do not silently change nutrition quality.

Data is limited. The result should be treated as an initial indication rather than a final assessment.

Score drivers

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

Declared NOVA group 1 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Fiber (12.5 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Protein (12.5 g/100 g) provides limited support to the nutrition score.
Impact: low

Pulls the score down

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (50%).
Impact: medium

Uncertain area

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.
Impact: high
Confidence is reduced by missing nutrition evidence.
Impact: high
Record completeness is 22%.
Impact: medium

Some source data is incomplete for this product: sugars per 100g, saturated fat per 100g, sodium per 100g or salt per 100g, quantity, category, allergens, and front image. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Signal classes

Supporting factors

Fiber (12.5 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Protein (12.5 g/100 g) provides limited support to the nutrition score.
Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut content (100%) supports the nutrition score.

Need attention

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.

Uncertain or missing data

Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut share was inferred heuristically.

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

Supporting factors

Declared NOVA group 1 anchors the processing indicator.

Uncertain or missing data

The processing indicator is inferred rather than declared directly.

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

Need attention

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (50%).

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

Structured source data

Facts used for scoring

Design

CategoryFood

Label information quality56/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Minimally processed · Limited estimate

Formulation complexity

Food score panel

Five-layer evaluation

Each dimension stays separate so the product can score well in one area and weakly in another without hiding trade-offs.

Nutrition score

/100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 80/100

Strong

processing is the strongest signal right now, while label quality needs the most caution.

Strongest area

Processing

Weakest area

Label quality

Data confidence

low

Data confidence

Data confidence 42/100

Low reliability

Data coverage is limited and the result should be interpreted with caution.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The result is strong and supports a positive overall assessment.

Nutrition profile

Strong

80/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Minimally processed

Minimally processed · Limited estimate

100

Processing indicator is available, but part of the classification is inferred.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Mixed

56/100

Label quality reflects completeness and consistency of the record, not nutrition quality.

How is the score built?

Open the methodology note

Data is limited. The result should be treated as an initial indication rather than a final assessment.

Score drivers

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

Declared NOVA group 1 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Fiber (12.5 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Protein (12.5 g/100 g) provides limited support to the nutrition score.
Impact: low

Pulls the score down

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (50%).
Impact: medium

Uncertain area

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.
Impact: high
Confidence is reduced by missing nutrition evidence.
Impact: high
Record completeness is 22%.
Impact: medium

365 Everyday Value Organic Instant Oatmeal

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Supporting factors

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Label quality

Need attention

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 80/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

365 Everyday Value Organic Instant Oatmeal

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Supporting factors

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Label quality

Need attention

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 80/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Performance

What lowers the rating

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid