mirror of
https://github.com/bmadcode/BMAD-METHOD.git
synced 2025-12-29 16:14:59 +00:00
300 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
300 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
|
|
# Market Research Report Validation Checklist
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## 🚨 CRITICAL: Source Verification and Fact-Checking (PRIORITY)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Source Citation Completeness
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- [ ] **EVERY** market size claim has at least 2 cited sources with URLs
|
||
|
|
- [ ] **EVERY** growth rate/CAGR has cited sources with URLs
|
||
|
|
- [ ] **EVERY** competitive data point (pricing, features, funding) has sources with URLs
|
||
|
|
- [ ] **EVERY** customer statistic or insight has cited sources
|
||
|
|
- [ ] **EVERY** industry trend claim has sources from {{current_year}} or recent years
|
||
|
|
- [ ] All sources include: Name, Date, URL (clickable links)
|
||
|
|
- [ ] No claims exist without verifiable sources
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Source Quality and Credibility
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Market size sources are HIGH credibility (Gartner, Forrester, IDC, government data, industry associations)
|
||
|
|
- [ ] NOT relying on single blog posts or unverified sources for critical data
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Sources are recent ({{current_year}} or within 1-2 years for time-sensitive data)
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Primary sources prioritized over secondary/tertiary sources
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Paywalled reports are cited with proper attribution (e.g., "Gartner Market Report 2025")
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Multi-Source Verification (Critical Claims)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- [ ] TAM calculation verified by at least 2 independent sources
|
||
|
|
- [ ] SAM calculation methodology is transparent and sourced
|
||
|
|
- [ ] SOM estimates are conservative and based on comparable benchmarks
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Market growth rates corroborated by multiple analyst reports
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Competitive market share data verified across sources
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Conflicting Data Resolution
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Where sources conflict, ALL conflicting estimates are presented
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Variance between sources is explained (methodology, scope differences)
|
||
|
|
- [ ] No arbitrary selection of "convenient" numbers without noting alternatives
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Conflicting data is flagged with confidence levels
|
||
|
|
- [ ] User is made aware of uncertainty in conflicting claims
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Confidence Level Marking
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Every major claim is marked with confidence level:
|
||
|
|
- **[Verified - 2+ sources]** = High confidence, multiple independent sources agree
|
||
|
|
- **[Single source - verify]** = Medium confidence, only one source found
|
||
|
|
- **[Estimated - low confidence]** = Low confidence, calculated/projected without strong sources
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Low confidence claims are clearly flagged for user to verify independently
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Speculative/projected data is labeled as PROJECTION or FORECAST, not presented as fact
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Fact vs Analysis vs Speculation
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Clear distinction between:
|
||
|
|
- **FACT:** Sourced data with citations (e.g., "Market is $5.2B [Source: Gartner 2025]")
|
||
|
|
- **ANALYSIS:** Interpretation of facts (e.g., "This suggests strong growth momentum")
|
||
|
|
- **SPECULATION:** Educated guesses (e.g., "This trend may continue if...")
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Analysis and speculation are NOT presented as verified facts
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Recommendations are based on sourced facts, not unsupported assumptions
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Anti-Hallucination Verification
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- [ ] No invented statistics or "made up" market sizes
|
||
|
|
- [ ] All percentages, dollar amounts, and growth rates are traceable to sources
|
||
|
|
- [ ] If data couldn't be found, report explicitly states "No verified data available for [X]"
|
||
|
|
- [ ] No use of vague sources like "industry experts say" without naming the expert/source
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Version numbers, dates, and specific figures match source material exactly
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Market Sizing Analysis (Source-Verified)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### TAM Calculation Sources
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- [ ] TAM figure has at least 2 independent source citations
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Calculation methodology is sourced (not invented)
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Industry benchmarks used for sanity-check are cited
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Growth rate assumptions are backed by sourced projections
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Any adjustments or filters applied are justified and documented
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### SAM and SOM Source Verification
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- [ ] SAM constraints are based on sourced data (addressable market scope)
|
||
|
|
- [ ] SOM competitive assumptions cite actual competitor data
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Market share benchmarks reference comparable companies with sources
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Scenarios (conservative/realistic/optimistic) are justified with sourced reasoning
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Competitive Analysis (Source-Verified)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Competitor Data Source Verification
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- [ ] **EVERY** competitor mentioned has source for basic company info
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Competitor pricing data has sources (website URLs, pricing pages, reviews)
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Funding amounts cite sources (Crunchbase, press releases, SEC filings)
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Product features verified through sources (official website, documentation, reviews)
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Market positioning claims are backed by sources (analyst reports, company statements)
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Customer count/user numbers cite sources (company announcements, verified reports)
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Recent news and developments cite article URLs with dates from {{current_year}}
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Competitive Data Credibility
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Company websites/official sources used for product info (highest credibility)
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Financial data from Crunchbase, PitchBook, or SEC filings (not rumors)
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Review sites cited for customer sentiment (G2, Capterra, TrustPilot with URLs)
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Pricing verified from official pricing pages (with URL and date checked)
|
||
|
|
- [ ] No assumptions about competitors without sourced evidence
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Competitive Claims Verification
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Market share claims cite analyst reports or verified data
|
||
|
|
- [ ] "Leading" or "dominant" claims backed by sourced market data
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Competitor weaknesses cited from reviews, articles, or public statements (not speculation)
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Product comparison claims verified (feature lists from official sources)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Customer Intelligence (Source-Verified)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Customer Data Sources
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Customer segment data cites research sources (reports, surveys, studies)
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Demographics/firmographics backed by census data, industry reports, or studies
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Pain points sourced from customer research, reviews, surveys (not assumed)
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Willingness to pay backed by pricing studies, surveys, or comparable market data
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Buying behavior sourced from research studies or industry data
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Jobs-to-be-Done insights cite customer research or validated frameworks
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Customer Insight Credibility
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Primary research (if conducted) documents sample size and methodology
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Secondary research cites the original study/report with full attribution
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Customer quotes or testimonials cite the source (interview, review site, case study)
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Persona data based on real research findings (not fictional archetypes)
|
||
|
|
- [ ] No invented customer statistics or behaviors without source backing
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Positioning Analysis
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Market positioning map uses relevant dimensions for the industry
|
||
|
|
- [ ] White space opportunities are clearly identified
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Differentiation strategy is supported by competitive gaps
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Switching costs and barriers are quantified
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Network effects and moats are assessed
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Industry Analysis
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Porter's Five Forces
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Each force has a clear rating (Low/Medium/High) with justification
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Specific examples and evidence support each assessment
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Industry-specific factors are considered (not generic template)
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Implications for strategy are drawn from each force
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Overall industry attractiveness conclusion is provided
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Trends and Dynamics
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- [ ] At least 5 major trends are identified with evidence
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Technology disruptions are assessed for probability and timeline
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Regulatory changes and their impacts are documented
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Social/cultural shifts relevant to adoption are included
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Market maturity stage is identified with supporting indicators
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Strategic Recommendations
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Go-to-Market Strategy
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Target segment prioritization has clear rationale
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Positioning statement is specific and differentiated
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Channel strategy aligns with customer buying behavior
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Partnership opportunities are identified with specific targets
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Pricing strategy is justified by willingness-to-pay analysis
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Opportunity Assessment
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Each opportunity is sized quantitatively
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Resource requirements are estimated (time, money, people)
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Success criteria are measurable and time-bound
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Dependencies and prerequisites are identified
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Quick wins vs. long-term plays are distinguished
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Risk Analysis
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- [ ] All major risk categories are covered (market, competitive, execution, regulatory)
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Each risk has probability and impact assessment
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Mitigation strategies are specific and actionable
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Early warning indicators are defined
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Contingency plans are outlined for high-impact risks
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## References and Source Documentation (CRITICAL)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### References Section Completeness
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Report includes comprehensive "References and Sources" section
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Sources organized by category (market size, competitive, customer, trends)
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Every source includes: Title/Name, Publisher, Date, Full URL
|
||
|
|
- [ ] URLs are clickable and functional (not broken links)
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Sources are numbered or organized for easy reference
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Inline citations throughout report reference the sources section
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Source Quality Metrics
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Report documents total sources cited count
|
||
|
|
- [ ] High confidence claims (2+ sources) count is reported
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Single source claims are identified and counted
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Low confidence/speculative claims are flagged
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Web searches conducted count is included (for transparency)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Source Audit Trail
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- [ ] For each major section, sources are listed
|
||
|
|
- [ ] TAM/SAM/SOM calculations show source for each number
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Competitive data shows source for each competitor profile
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Customer insights show research sources
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Industry trends show article/report sources with dates
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Citation Format Standards
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Inline citations format: [Source: Company/Publication, Year, URL] or similar
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Consistent citation style throughout document
|
||
|
|
- [ ] No vague citations like "according to sources" without specifics
|
||
|
|
- [ ] URLs are complete (not truncated)
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Accessed/verified dates included for web sources
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Document Quality
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Anti-Hallucination Final Check
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Read through entire report - does anything "feel" invented or too convenient?
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Spot-check 5-10 random claims - can you find the cited source?
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Check suspicious round numbers - are they actually from sources?
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Verify any "shocking" statistics have strong sources
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Cross-check key market size claims against multiple cited sources
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Structure and Completeness
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Executive summary captures all key insights
|
||
|
|
- [ ] No placeholder text remains (all {{variables}} are replaced)
|
||
|
|
- [ ] References section is complete and properly formatted
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Source quality assessment included
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Document ready for fact-checking by third party
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Research Completeness
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Coverage Check
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- [ ] All workflow steps were completed (none skipped without justification)
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Optional analyses were considered and included where valuable
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Web research was conducted for current market intelligence
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Financial projections align with market size analysis
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Implementation roadmap provides clear next steps
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Validation
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Key findings are triangulated across multiple sources
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Surprising insights are double-checked for accuracy
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Calculations are verified for mathematical accuracy
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Conclusions logically follow from the analysis
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Recommendations are actionable and specific
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Final Quality Assurance
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Ready for Decision-Making
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Research answers all initial objectives
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Sufficient detail for investment decisions
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Clear go/no-go recommendation provided
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Success metrics are defined
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Follow-up research needs are identified
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Document Meta
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Research date is current
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Confidence levels are indicated for key assertions
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Next review date is set
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Distribution list is appropriate
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Confidentiality classification is marked
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Issues Found
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Critical Issues
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_List any critical gaps or errors that must be addressed:_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Issue 1: [Description]
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Issue 2: [Description]
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Minor Issues
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_List minor improvements that would enhance the report:_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Issue 1: [Description]
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Issue 2: [Description]
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Additional Research Needed
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_List areas requiring further investigation:_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Topic 1: [Description]
|
||
|
|
- [ ] Topic 2: [Description]
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**Validation Complete:** ☐ Yes ☐ No
|
||
|
|
**Ready for Distribution:** ☐ Yes ☐ No
|
||
|
|
**Reviewer:** **\*\***\_\_\_\_**\*\***
|
||
|
|
**Date:** **\*\***\_\_\_\_**\*\***
|