Research methods · Field notes
A vendor claim needs an evidence trail
Save the statement, source, scope, and date so the next reviewer can challenge your conclusion.
A URL alone is not the finding
A homepage may contain several products, customer stories, and future plans. Save the specific statement that supports your conclusion, not just the page address. Record whether it describes a current capability, a planned feature, or a customer outcome. The next reviewer should be able to explain why the evidence was relevant without repeating the whole search.
Keep four dates conceptually separate
A company can publish an old case study on a page you checked today. The page-check date, publication date, event date, and your assessment date answer different questions. Do not label an old deployment as new because a crawler just encountered it. If the original event date is missing, say so rather than substituting the retrieval date.
Preserve disagreement
A pricing page might reserve an API for one plan while a product page says integrations are available generally. Keep both sources and the apparent scope difference. Do not average contradictory claims into a confident status. A useful next step is a precise question about the intended plan, region, product version, or deployment model.
Make updates explainable
Startidea distinguishes indexed profiles, saved-source reviews, and fresh official-page checks. A failed refresh retains earlier evidence and timestamps. Public source checks can improve a shortlist, but they cannot prove control effectiveness or real-world performance. The most valuable update often narrows a claim: “available for this plan” is more useful than changing a generic badge from unknown to yes.
Sources & scope
Prepared October 13, 2026 with AI assistance. Vendor descriptions are attributed claims. Worksheets are proposed methods; numerical examples are illustrative. No hands-on vendor testing is represented.