Problem solving / RCA

Proof point inventory

Proof point inventory is licensed CC BY 4.0. Attribution: Katafacts (katafacts.com).

1 · What it is

What it is

A proof point inventory is a real, checkable answer to 'do we actually have proof for this pillar, or are we just saying it' — the evidence register's exact discipline, pointed at a message architecture's standing pillars instead of a shop-floor claim. A pillar proven once in a single deal isn't the same as a pillar with a growing, checked body of evidence behind it — this inventory tracks every proof point logged against each pillar, and honestly flags any pillar with zero proof points, or any specific claim that hasn't actually been confirmed yet.

2 · When to use it

When to use it — and when not to

Use it when

A message architecture exists and you want to track every real proof point behind each pillar as more deals and evidence accumulate, not just the one that first proved it.
A rep or a piece of marketing copy cites a specific proof (a customer quote, a stat) and you want to confirm it's actually been checked, not just repeated because it sounds plausible.
You want to know honestly which pillars still have zero proof points, rather than assuming every pillar in the standing message is equally backed.

Not when

You don't have a message architecture yet — build that first; this inventory tracks proof for pillars that already exist, it doesn't define them.
You're checking a single deal's own specific pitch — that's a value hypothesis; this inventory tracks the standing message's proof across every deal.

3 · How to fill it in

How to fill it in

Scope: What set of message pillars does this inventory cover?
Categories: List every pillar from your message architecture you want checked for real proof, even ones you expect are still empty.
Evidence items: For each proof point: the pillar it backs, the evidence type, source, date, and whether it's actually been confirmed — your own facts, never guessed.
Narrative: Drafted from the inventory's own computed coverage.

4 · What good looks like

What good looks like

The example below continues the Beacon Analytics storyline directly from its own message architecture — the same three pillars, with two backed by real measured trial data, a third claim honestly marked unverified pending a direct buyer check, and the spreadsheet-trust pillar still carrying zero proof points, the same gap the message architecture itself already flagged.

Same example, as a downloadable xlsx workbook.

Download .xlsx

Evidence register

Beacon Analytics — proof point inventory

Checks whether Beacon Analytics' three standing message pillars are actually backed by real evidence, not just proven once and assumed to still hold.

Priya Anand, RevOps · 2027-04-05

Scope

Checks whether Beacon Analytics' three standing message pillars are actually backed by real evidence, not just proven once and assumed to still hold.

Categories

Real-time deal-risk visibility (48-hour target)
Quantified business case ($310K reference figure)
Trust over a familiar spreadsheetNo evidence yet

Evidence items

Real-time deal-risk visibility (48-hour target)

Deals were flagged at-risk within 48 hours in the Northline Freight trial cohort

measured-data · Northline Freight trial cohort — deal-risk scoring logs · 2027-02-20

Real-time deal-risk visibility (48-hour target)

Unverified

A third prospect, Meridian Logistics, cited the 48-hour visibility figure as a reason they signed

anecdotal · Rep's deal-close notes — not yet confirmed directly with the buyer · 2027-04-02

Quantified business case ($310K reference figure)

$310K in at-risk pipeline was flagged 2+ weeks earlier in the Northline Freight trial cohort

measured-data · Northline Freight trial cohort — value hypothesis calculation · 2027-02-20

Narrative

Both proven pillars have real, measured evidence behind them from the Northline Freight trial cohort — the same 48-hour figure and $310K reference figure the message architecture already cites. A second, newer claim for the visibility pillar — a prospect naming it as a reason they signed — is honestly marked unverified, since nobody's confirmed it directly with the buyer yet; a rep's deal-close notes aren't the same as a checked fact. The trust-over-spreadsheet pillar still has zero proof points logged, the same gap the message architecture itself already flagged — this inventory doesn't invent proof to fill it.

5 · Common mistakes

Common mistakes

Treating a pillar as proven forever once one proof point exists.
A proof point can age or a customer can churn — a pillar's real strength is the current, checked body of evidence behind it, not a one-time stamp from when it was first proven.
Logging a rep's or a channel's claim as a confirmed proof point without checking it directly.
A rep's deal-close note or a marketing claim is a lead worth checking, not evidence on its own — mark it unverified until it's actually confirmed with the source.
Skipping a pillar in the inventory because you already suspect it has no proof.
An unlisted pillar can't be flagged as a gap — this inventory only protects against an unproven claim shipping as fact if every real pillar is actually checked.

6 · What it connects to

What it connects to

upstream

Message architecture
The architecture's own pillars are exactly the categories this inventory checks for real proof — including whether the pillar it deliberately left unproven has earned any proof points yet.

downstream

7 · Where AI helps

Where AI helps

Judgement — stays yours

Deciding whether something counts as a real proof point or is still just an unconfirmed claim
Deciding which pillar's coverage gap to close first

Analysis — AI helps

Tightening a claim's wording from rough notes into a specific, checkable statement
Drafting the narrative from the inventory's own computed coverage

Drudgery — automated

Identifying which pillars have no proof points logged
Identifying which logged proof points are still unverified
Exporting to xlsx in the house format

9 · Rate this kata