In this article
The question
My rule for a customer result is that the number travels with the project that produced it. At Leucine, working on AI for pharma manufacturing, a claim had to trace back to a source record before it could be used. That is the bar I bring to Mach: keep the source and conditions beside the sales claim.
A seller needs to find the proof when a buyer asks for it. The seller also needs to carry it into the conversation without changing its meaning. I want Mach to help with both jobs while leaving the seller able to judge whether that proof belongs in this conversation at all.
Finding a case study does not finish the work
On r/salestechniques, u/Express_Tangerine209 described[1] being unable to find a relevant case study during a call. The poster said they had "proof points scattered across slack, emails, folders and random docs" and that the prospect did not respond after a later follow-up.
u/CMButterTortillas challenged[2] the claim that the prospect had been "basically sold" before the seller addressed proof. The thread also includes suspicion of promotion[3]. None of that establishes why the conversation ended.
I would make the approved evidence easier to retrieve without claiming that a better folder would have won the deal. The buyer's question about comparable results still needed a convincing answer.
My read is that retrieving a number and earning the right to use it are separate judgments. A result can be real, approved and easy to find, yet answer a different question from the one this buyer asked.
Keep the metric and the project together
This example is fictional. A case study says a customer measured 18% less packing time at one warehouse over 8 weeks, after changing its process and introducing a software workflow. It includes a baseline and a measurement method. It does not establish that the software alone caused the improvement.
A seller shortens that to "Customers cut costs by 18% with our software."
I would stop that sentence at review. Packing time has become costs. One warehouse has become customers in general. A result after a combined project has become an attribution to the software alone. The number stayed the same while the claim changed.
| Question | Fictional source record | Overstated sentence |
|---|---|---|
| What changed? | Packing time | Costs |
| Where? | One warehouse | Customers in general |
| Over what period? | 8 weeks | No period given |
| What contributed? | Process change and software workflow | Software alone |
A narrower sentence would be: "In one 8-week project, a customer measured 18% less packing time at one warehouse after changing its process and introducing the workflow."
For a real customer, I would still want the supporting record and permission for that use. The extra words carry conditions a buyer needs to understand the result. If a shorter sentence changes that understanding, I would narrow the claim further or offer the full case instead.
What I want beside a result
The source-record lesson gives me a practical rule for Mach. A result should remain connected to enough information for someone outside the original project to examine it.
• Customer and permission. Who is the claim about, can they be named, and where may it be used?
• Metric. What changed, and how was it defined? Time, cost, revenue and conversion rate are different measures.
• Baseline and comparison. Compared with what, and how was that comparison made?
• Scope and period. Which team, site, population and dates were included?
• Contribution. What did the seller deliver, and what else changed during the project?
• Source and owner. Where is the supporting record, who can answer questions, and when was permission last checked?
I would leave missing details visible. If the source gives no measurement method, the seller should not supply one from memory. If the baseline cannot be found, a claim that depends on it needs another source or a rewrite.
An anonymous example needs the same care. Removing a name does not substantiate the result, and a detailed project description can still identify the customer. Permission is a separate condition from whether the number is accurate.
Match the proof to the buyer's question
I want a proof point selected for what the buyer needs to understand. A warehouse packing result can show experience with that workflow. It gives less help with demand forecasting or a company-wide rollout.
The same industry is only one part of the comparison. I would also look at scale, starting conditions, the work performed and the implementation. A case can demonstrate a relevant capability without promising that this buyer will get the same outcome.
When no comparable customer exists, I want that absence stated. The seller can explain the work they can do, use another approved example with its limits, or offer an implementation approach. Adding an unrelated percentage would make the message more precise-looking while leaving the buyer's question unanswered.
For proof to be usable during a call, I would index approved cases by the question they answer and keep the supporting record attached. "Warehouse packing workflow" tells the next seller more than a folder called "great results."
A number checker leaves judgment to do
Mach's first-message checker requires claims to cite evidence from the run and compares their numbers with the cited quotation and date. It also checks numbers in proposed messages against an allowed set drawn from claims, selected case-study fields and other inputs.
That is useful for catching some unsupported digits. It does not compare the full meaning of "packing time at one warehouse" with "cost savings for every customer." My bar for the finished claim still includes the metric, population, period, attribution and permission. A passing number check cannot approve those on the seller's behalf.
The US Federal Trade Commission's advertising guidance[4] requires an objective basis for advertising claims and says the evidence needed depends on the claim. It supports checking what a sentence conveys, including its context. The guidance concerns US advertising; it does not decide the rules for every sales message or jurisdiction.
Before approving a result, I would underline the metric, population, period and contribution in both the source and the proposed sentence. Anything that appears only in the sales sentence needs support or removal. What happens when approved message facts change? follows that responsibility after review.
How this post was made
AI assisted research and drafting from my background notes and the linked public material. Public passages were checked on 5 November 2026. Code descriptions use source version 58fc9baf04e8. The number allowance also includes names, hook dates and a fixed 15; it is broader than customer results alone. No customer measurement, permission or checker execution was verified for this post. The warehouse project and 18% result are fictional, and my rule describes the bar I want Mach to meet.
Which condition in your most-used customer result would change its meaning if a seller left it out?
Common questions
Can we use an anonymous customer example?
Only when the claim has support and the relevant permission allows that use. Removing the customer's name does not verify the result or remove identifying details from the project. Keep the source and approval available to the people responsible for the claim.
Can we say our product caused the result?
Use causal language only when the evidence supports it. A result measured after process changes, training and software introduction does not isolate the software's contribution. Describe what changed and what the project included rather than assigning the whole effect to one component.
Is matching the number enough?
Check the metric, population, period, attribution and permission too. A correct number can appear in an inaccurate sentence. The inspected Mach checker can catch some unsupported digits, but it does not establish that “time saved” and “money saved” mean the same thing.
What if the source gives no baseline?
Do not invent one or calculate a result that depends on it. Use the narrower statement the record supports and ask the source owner for the missing comparison. If the missing baseline prevents a reader from understanding the figure, choose a different proof point.
Does the same industry make a case study relevant?
It can help, but compare the workflow, scale, starting conditions and implementation as well. Two companies in the same industry may have different constraints. State the part of the project that answers this buyer's question and avoid promising the same outcome.
How should a team make proof easier to find?
Index approved examples by the buyer question they answer, then keep a link to the source and its conditions. A title such as “warehouse packing workflow” can be more useful during a call than a folder named “great results.” Assign an owner who can check changes and permissions.
What if the customer changes or withdraws permission?
Record the change and find the places where the claim is reused, including templates and scheduled messages. Have the responsible owner review affected use before it continues. A previously approved sentence still needs permission for its current audience and channel.
Sources and further reading
- Express_Tangerine209 on scattered proof pointsReddit / r/salestechniquesBack to text
- CMButterTortillas challenges the qualification accountReddit / r/salestechniquesBack to text
- Cadarn13 expresses suspicion of promotionReddit / r/salestechniquesBack to text
- Advertising FAQs: A Guide for Small BusinessUS Federal Trade CommissionBack to text
