RRivalFrame
Sample deliverable

See the logic.
Check the evidence.

This demonstration shows the structure of a RivalFrame brief: the decision question, executive read, evidence ledger, confidence labels and recommended move. It is illustrative, not fabricated client work.

RivalFrame / Competitor Intelligence BriefIllustrative sample
Decision questionWhy are we losing mid-market deals to Rival B?
6material sources
4evidence clusters
3recommended moves

1. Executive read

The observable problem is not a missing feature. Rival B is reducing perceived adoption risk: a clearer onboarding promise, tighter packaging and public signals that it is moving upmarket. Reviews repeatedly mention onboarding time, while your public materials do not state a concrete time-to-value expectation.

Primary implication

Mid-market deals appear to be decided on time-to-value before feature depth becomes the deciding factor.

2. Evidence ledger

Pricing pageFree tier removed and packaging moved upwardObserved
ReviewsOnboarding friction repeated across multiple public reviewsObserved
HiringEnterprise security hiring suggests an upmarket pushInferred
Buyer forumsSeat pricing objections appear in several discussionsOpen question

3. Recommended moves

01. Publish a concrete onboarding and time-to-value expectation before changing list price.

02. Rebuild the trial around a single 7-day proof of value.

03. Give sales a short implementation-risk rebuttal based on the same evidence ledger.

What would prove this wrong?

If win/loss evidence shows feature gaps are named more often than adoption risk, the recommendation should be downgraded and the roadmap hypothesis revisited.