Evidence disclosure. The worked row below is synthetic and demonstrates structure only. It is not a claim about a real organisation or market outcome.
Decision summary
Start with the decision the team expects to revisit. Give every signal a source, evidence date, interpretation owner, trigger and next action. If a signal cannot change a decision, it probably does not belong in the weekly brief.
Write the decision before the query
“Monitor competitor pricing” is an activity. “Decide whether to change the renewal offer if two comparable competitors alter their entry plan within 30 days” is a decision rule. The second form creates a time window, comparison set and observable trigger.
- Decision: state the choice, owner and review date.
- Signal: describe an observable change without interpreting it.
- Evidence: retain the dated primary source and access context.
- Trigger: define the threshold that opens review, not an automatic conclusion.
- Action: record what happened and what evidence altered the decision.
Separate statement from interpretation
A product page, filing or announcement says what a business chose to publish. It does not prove adoption, performance or intent. Preserve the exact statement and evidence date in one field; place the team's interpretation and confidence in another.
| Decision | Observed statement | Interpretation | Trigger | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Review the example onboarding message | Example Competitor A adds “guided setup” to a fictional product page on 14 October. | Possible positioning shift. Confidence: low until scope and availability are verified. | A second comparable source confirms the offer is generally available. | Owner checks product terms; no message change yet. |
Use a source hierarchy
Prefer dated first-party material for what a competitor claims, and independent evidence for what customers or the market experienced. A copied summary is a discovery lead, not equivalent evidence. Archive only material the team has a right to retain.
Design the weekly review
Group changes by decision, not by competitor. Close stale signals, note contradictory evidence and show what changed since the previous brief. A compact decision log is more useful than an expanding feed.
Methods
Define the comparison set, source classes, capture frequency, evidence-retention rule and escalation threshold before collection. Record the source URL, access date, exact claim, analyst interpretation, confidence and reviewer state.
Run the same capture routine across the declared comparison set and time window. Note access failures and material page changes. At review, a second editor should be able to trace each interpretation to the retained statement and decide whether the trigger was applied consistently. Do not score a competitor merely because a source was unavailable.
Limitations
Public claims are incomplete and selectively presented. Absence of a statement is not evidence of absence. Monitoring cannot establish a competitor's private intentions, customer adoption or commercial results.
Sources
Evidence scope. This methods article uses no real competitor source or interview. A future case study must identify each dated disclosure, its access date, retained evidence and the claim it supports.
- Interview verified intelligence practitioners and document their role and consent.
- Use a reviewed example based on dated, permitted public disclosures.
- Seek factual review where the article makes a checkable statement about a real organisation.
Update status
No material updates have been recorded since publication. Any future factual change will state what changed, when it changed and whether the decision summary or linked evidence was affected.