The report puts the scores, the evidence matrix and the claim check on the table. After that, someone has to do something with it: weigh gaps, rewrite claims, perhaps have the most difficult peer scores checked again by someone with more feel for that market. How that continues is up to you. The tool does not force a route — there are three ways to work from here, and the first is the way this product was built for.
You receive a priority list: for each gap it states whether it is worth investing in or letting go, how urgent it is, and what the first three steps are. Alongside it is a worksheet for rewriting a claim you cannot prove into something that does hold up.
This route fits when the evidence matrix became largely filled with your own sources and those of customers, and when the organization can itself judge which gaps affect the purchase decision. That requires someone who can read the outcomes without having them explained first, and a team that actually picks up a priority list into plans and approach — how that continues can be read on How it works.
This route does not fit when the peer scores remain stuck at desk research without a hard source URL, or when no one in the organization dares to make the call on which gap counts and which does not. Then there is a picture, not a decision — and that is exactly what the line between evidence and opinion is meant to prevent.
A partner conducts the expert interviews the tool itself does not do, or picks up the peer scores where desk research reaches its limit: a competitor who locks down its website well, a niche about which little has been published. Meanwhile the tool remains the record: every score gets its source, its date, its name, and lands in the same evidence matrix as the rest.
This route fits when part of the peer group or part of the dimensions cannot be filled with sources without someone probing further, but the rest of the process — the setup, the organization's own sourcing round, reading the report — can stay within the organization. That requires an organization that knows which part it is outsourcing and which part it keeps doing itself, and that can give the partner a well-defined question instead of an open assignment.
This route does not fit when the organization does not actually know what to ask the partner, or when the expectation is that the partner will also immediately say what to do with the outcome. That is route 3, and it is a different conversation.
The partner runs the complete benchmark, from setup to report, on our machine in partner mode. The report remains yours — it is not an external document that gets handed over, but the same four views, the same white-space analysis and the same claim check, with the same evidence matrix behind it.
This route fits when there is simply no capacity to organize the sourcing round yourself, or when the sector is so thinly documented that nearly every peer score requires expert knowledge not available internally. It also fits when there is a need for someone to explain the outcome to a board that was not involved in the setup.
This route does not fit as a replacement for reading the outcome yourself. The partner runs the machine, not the decision. Whoever thinks outsourcing means someone else also determines what is urgent is confusing this route with an advisory engagement — and that is never what is delivered here.
None of the routes change what the tool does: collecting scores from four sources, making them traceable in a matrix, and drawing a report from it with four views, white space and a claim check. The only difference is in who fills the sourcing round and who interprets the report. Route 1 does both itself. Route 2 outsources part of the sourcing round. Route 3 outsources the entire execution, but not ownership of the report.
Whichever route is chosen, the setup itself — sector, dimensions, scale, peer group — comes from the same machine logic; whoever is not yet familiar with that can read it back on What it is, and whoever is looking for examples of earlier setups and claim checks will find them in the knowledge base.
A gap on the purchase dimension or a claim that does not hold up is a strategic theme — not hours, not tasks, not a system. Whoever wants to know what that means concretely for work and capacity takes the next step in the work scan on [ftetoai.com](https://ftetoai.com).