EDITORIAL STANDARDS
What we cite, and what we refuse to
Revenue operations is largely practised as an assertion discipline. Benchmark figures circulate without a traceable source, best practices are published without the conditions under which they fail, and advice that cannot be falsified cannot teach anything. We are trying to practise it as an evidence discipline instead, and this page is the standard we hold ourselves to.
Our rules
Every factual claim is traceable, or it is labelled as argument.
Not “studies show”. The authors, the year, the publication, and a DOI or stable link you can check.
We publish the method, not only the conclusion.
Where a claim has a magnitude, we give you a protocol to measure it in your own organisation rather than asserting a number that may not describe you.
We state where our advice stops working.
Every model has conditions under which it fails. Naming them is what separates a method from a slogan.
We do not quote industry benchmarks we cannot trace to a primary source.
Widely repeated figures in this field frequently trace back to a vendor citing itself. Where we need a number and cannot source one, we say so.
We correct in public.
When we get something wrong we change it and say what changed. A source that shows its method can survive being wrong; one that only asserted cannot.
What we will not publish
- “Things you're doing wrong” framing. It asserts a deficiency without evidence, which is the opposite of the standard above.
- Untraceable statistics, however widely repeated.
- Gated arguments. You can read our full reasoning and every citation without giving us anything.
- Trend commentary with no half-life.
- Length as a ranking tactic. Pages are as long as the argument requires.
On gating
We never gate an argument. Every white paper is readable in full, with its reference list, without an email address — because material you cannot check is not evidence, it is marketing with footnotes.
What we do ask for an email in exchange for is the working artefacts: the measurement workbooks, audit templates and assessment instruments. You have read the argument and agree with it; the tool is the next step. That exchange is honest in a way that withholding the reasoning is not.
Why this matters commercially
We sell a certification. A credential is a claim about rigour, and it is worth precisely as much as the rigour of the organisation issuing it. An issuer that repeats unsourced statistics is not in a position to assess anyone else's competence.
If you find a page of ours that breaches this standard, it is a defect. Tell us and we will fix it.