Every engagement ships three layers. The deck your leadership sees. The report that holds the complete reasoning. And the working papers, where the method earns its keep. When your board asks how you know, you hand them the answer instead of defending a slide.
A recommendation means nothing until you know what it beat.
Ruled out in testing. The proof for "AI-native" does not exist yet, everyone is already saying it, and the recent companies that tried it without proof are the ones that got burned.
Ruled out in testing. On its own turf it looks identical to a rival thirty times its size, and the claim needs proof only that rival holds.
Positioning pays back in quarters, not on launch day. So every claim the chosen position needs but cannot yet back gets a proof to bank, a time box, and a walk-away line that tells you when to fall back.
The layer that justifies the price. If you are the one who has to defend this decision upward, this is your ammunition. When the room asks "how do you know?", you answer with the full verdicts and the source behind every claim. You win the argument inside the building, and the company moves before the market moves first.
Claim tested: "the only close platform built for multi-entity retail." Test verdict: survives, with a raise. The wedge is defensible and the demand is verified in win/loss, but the believability score was raised ⬆ because the two reference customers are both pre-2024 and neither is multi-entity.
Owned-word test: "close" is contested by the incumbent's ad spend; "entity" is unclaimed across the field. Score rationale and the full transcript of the challenge follow.
Once a month I run the full engine on a public B2B company at a live positioning moment and publish the working. The splits, the scorecard, the bets, and the grid of what got ruled out. The client version gets the call. Client engagements stay private until a founding client trades a named case study, and then it appears here. Read one before you spend a dollar.