Example report from illustrative answers. Nothing here describes a real company.

Free offer diagnostic · taxonomy offer-physics-1.0

Onboarding Rebuild Sprint

Insufficient InformationOverall confidence: Insufficient Information

There is no overall score in this report, and no attempt to price your offer. Promise, credibility, cost and price are unlike variables; combining them into one number would hide the thing you need to see.

Offer snapshot

Customer: Heads of Customer Success at B2B SaaS companies between 20 and 80 staff, who own activation metrics but have no dedicated onboarding designer.
Problem: New accounts stall in the first three weeks, support absorbs the confusion, and renewals get argued about at the account level.
Promise: Faster activation and a measurable drop in first-30-day support tickets.
Exchange: A 10-week engagement where we rebuild the client's customer onboarding flow, run weekly working sessions with their team, and hand over a tested implementation with documentation. Included: Onboarding audit and flow map; Rebuilt in-product and email sequence; Weekly working sessions with your team; Tested implementation handover; Documentation and internal training. The customer pays 18,000 USD one-time.

Executive diagnosis

The offer promises: Faster activation and a measurable drop in first-30-day support tickets. There is not yet enough information about the alternatives buyers actually consider to classify how this offer is evaluated. The material constraints identified are: the promise currently outruns the evidence behind it; components are stacked, not designed as a system. Overall confidence in this diagnosis is Insufficient Information, based on what you told us your answers rest on (Q52).

Inference — synthesised from the findings below

How this offer is evaluated

Not enough information about what the customer does instead to classify how this offer is evaluated.

Basis: Q16, Q17. All information about alternatives and competitors in this report was supplied by you. Nothing about the market was independently researched or invented.

What is working

No strength reached the evidence threshold to be stated as one. That is a statement about the evidence available, not proof that nothing is working.

Three priority findings

Priority 1Material constraintConfidence: Insufficient InformationMaterial, needs evidence

The promise currently outruns the evidence behind it

Credibility

What this means

The claimed result is material, but what supports it is closer to assertion or general reputation than to evidence the specific buyer can apply to themselves.

Why it matters commercially

Buyers who find the promise attractive still cannot justify the decision internally, so they stall rather than object. Hesitation shows up as silence, not as a stated reason.

Recommended intervention

Build a self-evidencing step in front of the sale: a diagnostic, a measured baseline, a bounded pilot, a demonstration using the buyer's own data, or objective milestones.

Why this has leverage

Evidence the buyer can verify on their own data raises Credibility and lowers perceived risk (contingent Cost) at the same time — without changing the promise.

Missing information

Outcome data from comparable customers, and whether any current buyer has verified the result themselves.

Double-counting check

Counted once, under Credibility. The delivery burden it implies is handled separately under Cost.

Priority 2Material constraintConfidence: Insufficient InformationSecondary improvement

Components are stacked, not designed as a system

Bundle Design

What this means

The offer contains many components, but you did not describe relationships in which one component makes another work better, or removes work from the customer.

Why it matters commercially

Buyers read long inclusion lists as padding and mentally price the pieces individually — which invites unbundling and price comparison.

Recommended intervention

Identify the two or three components that genuinely depend on each other, describe that dependency, and consider removing components that do not participate.

Why this has leverage

A described dependency converts a list into an integrated system, which raises Promise and reduces substitutability without adding delivery cost.

Missing information

Which components buyers actually use, and which they ignore.

Double-counting check

Assessed only as bundle architecture, not as a promise defect.

Component by component

Promise

Inference — no finding generated

No material promise constraint was identified from your answers. The promise, as described, appears internally consistent with what you say the product delivers — an absence of findings here is not positive proof of strength.

Based on Q06

Credibility

The promise currently outruns the evidence behind it (material constraint, confidence: Insufficient Information). The claimed result is material, but what supports it is closer to assertion or general reputation than to evidence the specific buyer can apply to themselves.

Based on Q06

Non-price cost

Inference — no finding generated

No material non-price cost constraint was identified. The burden you described appears bounded and mostly owned by you rather than the customer.

Price

Inference — no finding generated

No material price-structure constraint was identified: the amount and terms appear knowable at the point of decision.

Based on Q11, Q12

Market comparison and bundle design

Components are stacked, not designed as a system (material constraint, confidence: Insufficient Information). The offer contains many components, but you did not describe relationships in which one component makes another work better, or removes work from the customer.

Based on Q07, Q16

Decision context

No decision-context blocker was identified from your answers.

Reported separately from the offer itself · based on Q15

Missing information and confidence

Outcome history for past customers is absent, which limits confidence in efficacy claims.
No recorded objections from real prospects, so buyer hesitation is inferred rather than observed.

One experiment to run in 30 days

Run a paid diagnostic with three prospects

Offer three qualified prospects a small, paid first step that measures their current baseline on the outcome you promise. Record what they learn and whether they proceed. You will end the month with buyer-specific evidence and a measured starting point you can quote.

Where this free diagnostic stops

Included here, free

Offer snapshot and evaluation mode
What is working
Three priority findings with your evidence
Evidence gaps and confidence
One 30-day experiment

Human-reviewed redesign

Competitor-validated reference alternative
Complete bundle redesign and promise architecture
Evidence architecture and remedy design
Price and terms redesign, implementation roadmap
Human validation of every finding

Request a human-reviewed offer redesign

This free diagnostic is qualitative. It is not scientific, predictive, or a valuation, and it contains no competitor data beyond what you supplied.