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.
bizSAFE level stated as Level 4 against a verified Level 3 record
On the record
We are BizSafe Level 3 certified and recipients of two industry awards.
Arrived since
Holds a bizSAFE Level 4 badge
Why it matters: The certification level is going onto the website as a trust marker; publishing a level the company does not hold is a false credential claim, and recency alone must not override a verified external record.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit
Award count and award years conflict with the verified record of two awards in 2018 and 2019
On the record
Won bronze and silver at a marketing award in 2018 and 2019 (different category to the current one); 'recipients of two industry awards' (verified external)
Arrived since
Holds four marketing event awards; won the same marketing event award in multiple years, cited variously as 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2025
Why it matters: Awards are about to be displayed in an achievements section with official logos. Publishing an unverified count or year list is a falsifiable credential claim, and the incoming years are inconsistent even with each other.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit
bizSAFE level stated as Level 4 against a verified Level 3 record
On the record
We are BizSafe Level 3 certified (verified external)
Arrived since
Holds a 'be safe' certification (likely bizSAFE), stated here as Level 4
Why it matters: The badge is slated for the website achievements section. Displaying a higher bizSAFE level than held is a false certification claim and can affect tender eligibility.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit
Recommendation against granular conversion events conflicts with the pixel setup already implemented
On the record
Meta pixel is now configured on both the opt-in form and the calendar booking stage; opt-in submission fires a 'lead' event and appointment booking fires a 'schedule' event back to Meta
Arrived since
Agency position is that for high-ticket offers Meta performs better with a single consolidated conversion basket than with granular multi-step call-stage events, citing a real estate client whose ad results worsened after over-segmenting
Why it matters: The two-event setup was built to fix the acknowledged pixel problems that were the likely cause of past tracking issues. If the agency's own position is that multi-step events degrade performance for high-ticket offers, the freshly built configuration may be working against the ad account — and leaving both records in place means whoever reads next cannot tell which one governs.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit
Access problem widened from Funnel Web only to both platforms
On the record
The legacy funnel web account is locked out for both the founder and the agency, blocking lead handling and domain migration — and Salesable treated throughout as the working destination platform held on a paid subscription
Arrived since
Neither the founder nor the agency holds owner-level access to Funnel Web or Salesable; both were set up under accounts owned by others
Why it matters: The entire migration plan rests on Salesable being a platform the client controls. If owner-level access to Salesable is also missing, the consolidation decision, the domain move and the course hosting all inherit the same single-point-of-failure that caused this project, and the client could be locked out of the destination too.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit
Contact volumes conflict across three records and internally within the incoming batch
On the record
505 contacts were migrated from the legacy funnel web system to Salesable; separately, existing customer/contact database of 9,000 email addresses
Arrived since
Over 9,000 contacts exist on each of the two platforms, exported for migration — and, in the same batch, approximately 200 of the contacts originate from Funnel Web with around 8,800 from the older Salesable data
Why it matters: These cannot all be true. 'Over 9,000 on each platform' is contradicted by the same batch's own split of 200 plus 8,800. The Funnel Web-origin count has also moved backwards from 505 to ~200, which no passage of time explains. Migration scoping, the safe-vs-VLOOKUP option choice and any reported database-size figure all depend on getting this right, and an inflated contact count is the kind of number that ends up in a public claim.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit
Current funnel described as driving to a live webinar, while the knowledge base records a rebuilt three-step funnel with a pre-recorded 75-minute video and live webinars only planned to resume
On the record
Step two of the funnel is a 75-minute video followed by calendar booking; Monthly live webinar series, targeted to launch late September or early October; Live webinars are planned to resume with automated reminder emails and WhatsApp reminders set up beforehand
Arrived since
The marketing funnel drives traffic to a live webinar, after which prospects can book an appointment directly or be followed up with by the sales team
Why it matters: The funnel step is the single most load-bearing fact for ad copy, landing page promises and the webinar relaunch timeline. If creative promises a live webinar while the funnel serves a recorded video, prospects are misled and the 90%+ show-up figure is being attributed to the wrong asset. The two statements cannot both describe the funnel as it stands today.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit
Door gift is promised for registering early or bringing a floor plan, but incoming says no gift is given for turning up
On the record
Free entry with door gift for early bird registrants; Free entry with door gift for homeowners who bring their floor plan
Arrived since
Homeowners receive no gift simply for turning up; incentives are tied to meeting designers, to filter for genuine homeowners
Why it matters: Both existing statements are offer-type facts and read like published marketing promises. If the operational reality is that gifts require meeting designers, every ad and landing page carrying the door-gift line is making a promise the event will not honour at the door, which is a consumer-facing false claim and a front-desk dispute on the day.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit
Zone B is described both as a consultation zone and as the admin/lunch/rest zone
On the record
Venue floor plan is divided into four zones: Zone A and Zone B for consultations, Zone C for vendors, Zone D as a resting area
Arrived since
Zone B doubles as the admin zone where lunch is served and firms can rest or swap with colleagues
Why it matters: The zone map drives usher routing, firm setup, the homeowner entrance description and lunch logistics. If firms are briefed to consult in Zone B while lunch is served there, the floor plan sent to participating firms will be wrong on event day. It also undercuts the related incoming claim that the main homeowner entrance is on the Zone A and Zone B side.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit
Overbooking undercuts the 'fully booked, real capacity constraint' authority claim
On the record
Previous events fully booked — capacity constraint is real, not manufactured
Arrived since
Organisers overbook registrations to offset drop-off
Why it matters: An explicit claim that scarcity is 'not manufactured' sits directly against a practice of taking more registrations than capacity. If both run in the same campaign, the authority claim is exposed as unsupportable.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit
Attendee cap of 150 restated as a 100–150 target range
On the record
150 homeowner cap per event to keep consultations intimate, not crowded
Arrived since
Organisers are aiming for 100 to 150 attendees per event, depending on show-up rates
Why it matters: The cap is used publicly as a scarcity and intimacy claim. If 150 is an aspiration rather than a ceiling — and turnout can be as low as 100 — the marketing claim of a deliberate cap is not supported by how the event is actually run.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit
Consultation table layout stated as both clustered and spread across the floor
On the record
A firm's four consultation tables are clustered together rather than spread across the showroom
Arrived since
Each firm is assigned four consultation tables, clustered together and spread across the first floor
Why it matters: Firms staff and stock their tables based on whether they occupy one cluster or several points on the floor. Getting this wrong on event day means designers stranded at unattended tables and homeowners sent to empty seats.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit