Review
1444 facts across 22 clients. Two questions each: can we stand behind it, and can an argument be built from it.
Nothing here blocks anything. Strategy already runs on these — approving a fact only tells it which to reach for first. Ten minutes on your biggest client is worth more than clearing the list.
Two things the system found that disagree, and it refused to pick. Each carries both claims and the options the critic drafted — settling one writes how it was settled, because the next person to hit the same contradiction reads only that.
WhatsApp automation described as both unable to nurture and actively messaging, replying and filtering
On the record
WhatsApp automation currently routes raw leads directly to the client without automated nurturing, due to software provider limitations
Arrived since
WhatsApp automation operates through a purchased online number that sends messages, captures replies and forwards confirmed resale leads into the group
Why it matters: These describe the same system in mutually exclusive states. If the limitation was lifted, the old record is stale and misleads anyone planning around it; if not, the new description overstates capability in client-facing material.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit
Three different figures now exist for BTO cost per lead in August 2026
On the record
BTO cost per lead in August 2026 was recorded as $93 in the full notes and $90+ in the summary notes
Arrived since
BTO cost per lead was $92 in August 2026
Why it matters: Same segment, same month, no time gap to explain the gap — a reported cost-per-lead used in budget decisions and client reporting is now unreliable at the dollar level, and the discrepancy predates this extraction.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit
Website build timeline: one-week estimate versus reported slow Figma conversion
On the record
Internal build and go-live of the site is estimated at about one business week after design files are approved
Arrived since
The in-house developer is currently converting the Figma files and progress is slow because the tool is new to him
Why it matters: The one-week estimate is likely to be sitting in a client-facing plan. A developer unfamiliar with the tool is not a change over time but a condition that was always true, so the original estimate was probably never achievable. Launch dates downstream of it need revisiting before they are promised again.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit
Age bracket for the social audience restated as 35-50 and tied to decision-makers
On the record
Social audience shows a balanced male/female split with the active age range 25-54 and the largest group 25-44; Core clients fall mainly in the 35 to 44 age range
Arrived since
September audience age skewed from younger viewers toward the 35-50 range, the bracket in which decision-makers sit
Why it matters: A 35-50 viewership band is being read as the decision-maker bracket, but the verified client fact is 35-44. If 35-50 is adopted as the targeting range it widens audience settings on paid spend beyond the bracket the client data actually supports, and blurs the distinction between who watches the content and who buys.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit
Agreed boost spend falls below the recorded boosting budget
On the record
Boosting a post is budgeted at around $50, while lead-generation ads require at least $1,000
Arrived since
Boosted post test agreed: the three-tips video, generic audience settings, $7-$8 per day for three to five days, optimised for profile visits
Why it matters: Same measure, same activity: a total of roughly $21-$40 against a recorded per-post budget of around $50. If the $50 figure is still the planning assumption, forecasts and reporting of boost reach will be built on a spend level that is not being used.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit
Two different stated differentiators for the brand
On the record
Positions its gamification and interactive exhibition work as its differentiator, and aims to be recognised as a leader in that area
Arrived since
Describes its differentiator as 'one team, one plan, one point of accountability'
Why it matters: Both are described as the differentiator — the singular claim. Messaging, the website hero and thought-leadership positioning can lead with only one. Leaving both as 'the' differentiator means whoever writes next picks arbitrarily, which is exactly the drift this base exists to stop.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit
Event attendance restated as a consistent result in an open-ended band
On the record
Agency has experience managing industry events with 200 to 300 attendees
Arrived since
Offline events for interior design firms consistently draw hundreds of homeowners
Why it matters: 'Consistently' converts demonstrated experience into a guaranteed repeatable outcome, and 'hundreds' reads upward from the recorded 200–300 ceiling. Used in a pitch deck it becomes an implied performance promise across every event, including ones that underperformed.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit
Quantified competitive superiority claim with no basis anywhere in the knowledge base
Arrived since
Claims to produce higher-quality video assets than 90% of competing agencies
Why it matters: The '90%' gives an opinion the appearance of a measurement. Nothing in the knowledge base defines the comparison set, the quality criterion or how it was assessed, so if this reaches a deck or an ad it is an unsubstantiated comparative claim the agency cannot defend.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit
OEM manufacturing and a proprietary in-house capsule machine sit in unexplained tension
Arrived since
OEM manufacturing to be secured for own-branded capsules / Proprietary herbal capsule machine in development
Why it matters: These are reconcilable — OEM for capsule contents, in-house for the brewing hardware — but nothing on record says so. An unstated reconciliation lets 'proprietary' and 'OEM' both be claimed about the same object, which weakens the proprietary claim if a customer or investor probes it.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit
Crash course advertised as 7-11 September but timetabled Monday to Thursday
On the record
Occra is running an End of Year crash course from 7 to 11 September
Arrived since
The crash course timetable is organised by subject across Monday to Thursday, with buffer slots available
Why it matters: 7-11 September is five weekdays; a Monday-to-Thursday subject timetable covers four. Either Friday is buffer-only or the advertised range overstates the run. Published dates that do not match the actual timetable produce turn-ups on a day with no class.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit
Market described as having few players with no source beyond the founder's view
Arrived since
The founder characterises the playground market as having few players
Why it matters: Stated as-is it reads as market research. If it is repeated without the attribution it becomes a competitive claim the brand cannot substantiate, and a single named competitor would undercut it.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit
Pre-order offer and September launch date are stated without confirmed capsule finalisation
Arrived since
The machine is available for pre-order ahead of a September launch
Why it matters: Capsules are on record as not yet finalised, and the launch is roughly a week away from today's date. Taking pre-order money against a September date whose dependency is unresolved is a commitment claim that could fail on delivery. Both statements can be true simultaneously, so this is not a contradiction — but the pairing needs a decision.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit