Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the optimization and adjustment of the evaluation mechanism for the New Wealth Best Analyst Awards starting in 2025, focusing on enhancing the research service experience and reducing non-research-related influences in the voting process [2][6]. Group 1: Mechanism Adjustments - The evaluation will shift from individual analyst assessments to a focus on "industry + research institution," eliminating the need for individual declarations [3]. - Only the names of research institutions will be published, not individual analysts, to prevent personnel changes or short-term controversies from affecting voting judgments [4]. - Research institutions can disclose their team members post-award for internal motivation and external promotion [5]. Group 2: Rationale for Adjustments - The traditional "declaration-display-voting" chain, while easy to disseminate, has been found to be susceptible to non-research influences, undermining the professional value of the evaluation [7]. - The adjustments aim to return to the essence of research services, allowing buyers to make professional judgments based on their research service experiences [8]. - The changes will facilitate a horizontal scan of all market research institutions by buyers [9]. - The adjustments seek to minimize irrational factors in the evaluation process, such as personnel fluctuations and vote-buying phenomena [10]. - The goal is to provide buyers with a cleaner, more focused, and efficient evaluation path [11]. - The market's attention is intended to shift from "star individuals" to "stable delivery capabilities," promoting the overall system construction of research institutions [12]. Group 3: Buyer Voting Experience - The new mechanism is expected to simplify the voting decision for buyers, allowing them to assess whether an institution provides trustworthy research services without recalling individual analyst names [14]. - Voting criteria will be more stable, unaffected by analyst job changes [15]. Group 4: Evaluation Positioning - The evaluation remains a third-party service assessment mechanism based on independent buyer judgment, providing authoritative references for buyers' research resource allocation and service procurement decisions [17]. - The evaluation will continue to serve as an important benchmark for measuring the professional capabilities of research institutions [18]. - A "buyer classification ranking" will be established based on different types of buyer institutions, enhancing the voice of voters and promoting broader service improvements and resource optimization [18].