← Every exhibit

Table Figure 1 Go-to-market & pricing

Preference-to-choice verification matrix

Stated customer feedback requires explicit behavioral verification tests before roadmap or commercial commitments are made.

Feedback categoryStated customer signal (What they say)Unconstrained bias riskObservable verification test (What they must do)Diagnostic divergence trigger
Feature Request"We need capability X before we can expand our contract."Politeness bias; feature desire without operational trade-offs.Signed beta agreement committing dedicated internal team hours and test data access.Customer refuses to dedicate technical staff or participate in active sandbox testing.
Price Willingness"We would gladly pay an additional 20 % for advanced analytics."Hypothetical willingness; lack of economic buyer scrutiny.Binding letter of intent (LOI) or pre-paid annual commitment at stated tier.Procurement demands standard tier pricing or requests the advanced feature be bundled for free.
Roadmap Priority"Integrations with platform Y are our single highest priority."Abstract ranking without evaluating immediate deployment bandwidth.Historical API log analysis showing active attempts to connect or export related datasets.Zero existing data export activity or failure to provide technical API credentials.
Satisfaction Score"We love the product and rate our satisfaction 9 out of 10."Passive contentment hiding latent churn risk.Weekly active stakeholder usage, multi-seat license adoption, and support ticket resolution velocity.Account renewal delayed or escalated to procurement for competitive discounting despite high NPS.
Migration Readiness"We are ready to replace our legacy vendor with your solution."Underestimation of internal switching costs and stakeholder resistance.Formal migration plan sign-off with defined data cutover dates and executive sponsorship.Project postponed due to internal IT freeze or refusal to notify incumbent vendor.

Swipe or scroll horizontally if the table is wider than your screen.

Cite Embed

Reference & Evidence

Source: Author's commercial verification framework grounded in Urban, Weinberg and Hauser (1996) and Aydin, Kwong, Ji and Law (2014). All categories and tests represent synthetic governance standards.

Each line is a claim from the register this journal publishes against, resolved from the register at build time.

  • A The concern is stated preference inflating under hype: the authors worried that "respondents overstated their willingness to purchase an environmentally sound car" and built the design around it. It is one electric-vehicle case in which "the authors describe how one firm combines managerial judgment" with market measurement, not a general law Urban, Weinberg & Hauser. (1996) · UWH96-C1
  • A The paper's actual claim is about FUZZINESS, not a survey-versus-choice-model comparison: "a high degree of fuzziness always exists in the data obtained from conjoint surveys" and "ignorance of the fuzziness would lead to the over-estimation of market demands" Aydin, Kwong, Ji & Law. (2014) · AKJL14-C1

Grades: A, verified against the printed page of the primary source · B, primary source, text layer only · C, authoritative secondary · D, reported.

Related exhibits