Coverage Reference — Active Disciplines, Pipeline, and Exclusions

Research Agenda

Market Proof Lab's research agenda documents the four active proof disciplines, the categories currently in the coverage pipeline, the criteria for coverage initiation, and the categories the Lab has determined it will not cover and why. Publishing the research agenda before coverage begins ensures that coverage decisions are transparent and can be assessed independently — researchers and organizations should not encounter Lab coverage of a category without prior notice that it was under consideration.

Four Active Proof Disciplines

The Lab's four proof disciplines address distinct categories of evidence gap. Every validation output published by Market Proof Lab is produced under one of these four disciplines, applying the discipline-specific methodology described below. All four disciplines share the same seven-class proof framework and three-state claim classification system documented in the methodology.

Active Discipline

Vendor Proof Analysis

Validating whether vendor capability claims are supported by independently verifiable evidence from public sources. Vendor Proof Analysis is the Lab's primary discipline and addresses the most fundamental evidence gap in most markets: the asymmetry between what vendors assert about their capabilities and what the independent public evidence record confirms. Every Vendor Proof Analysis output begins with a published proof framework establishing what evidence would confirm or refute each capability claim under assessment.

Primary outputs

Proof Reports, Evidence Audits

Coverage criteria

Category with verifiable evidence asymmetry — vendor capability claims cannot be independently confirmed through standard public-source research — and sufficient public evidence to support structured analysis

Claim types assessed

Capability claims, feature claims, integration claims, security and compliance claims, performance claims, customer success claims (where independently verifiable)

Common proof gap patterns

Security and compliance claims (often asserted, rarely independently verifiable from public sources); customer outcome claims (frequently vendor-curated without independent corroboration); proprietary methodology claims (described but not externally verifiable)

Active Discipline

Market Signal Review

Separating documented market conditions from promotional signals. Market Signal Review examines what public evidence establishes about category demand, competitive positioning, and market structure — versus what vendor communications, industry publications, and promotional outputs assert. The discipline is designed for the common situation in which market narratives are shaped primarily by vendor marketing rather than independent market evidence.

Primary outputs

Signal Analysis, market condition reports

Coverage criteria

Category where public market narrative is substantially shaped by vendor-generated content and where independent market evidence exists to contrast against it

Claim types assessed

Market size and growth claims, category adoption claims, competitive position claims, market leadership claims, category definition claims

Common proof gap patterns

Market size claims (often sourced to vendor-commissioned or methodology-opaque research); adoption rate claims (frequently based on unverifiable vendor surveys); competitive position claims (typically based on vendor-selected comparison criteria)

Active Discipline

Trust Signal Benchmarks

Structured assessment of credibility indicators across providers in a category. Trust Signal Benchmarks evaluate what independently verifiable trust signals exist across a vendor population — credentials verifiable through issuing bodies, documented track records, regulatory compliance records, and third-party corroboration — and documents how these signals compare across vendors in the same category. See marketprooflab.com/benchmarks/ for full methodology details.

Primary outputs

Trust benchmarks, credibility assessments

Coverage criteria

Category where decision-makers face credibility evaluation challenges — where multiple vendors make similar trust-related claims and where the public evidence record provides meaningful differentiation in independently verifiable trust signals

Signal types assessed

Credential and certification signals (verifiable through issuing bodies), operating history signals, regulatory compliance signals, independent corroboration signals, market position signals

Common proof gap patterns

Self-described expertise (frequently asserted, rarely independently verifiable); customer relationship claims (vendor-listed without independent confirmation); proprietary certification claims (issued by the vendor's own certification program)

Active Discipline

Proof Framework Development

Building reusable evaluation frameworks that decision-makers and researchers can apply independently to vendor assessment challenges in a specific category. Proof Framework Development produces standalone documents that define what constitutes verifiable proof for a specific category evaluation question — published before any vendor is assessed so that the criteria are inspectable and applicable by external parties independent of the Lab's own validation outputs. See Validation Primers for practitioner-facing applications of this output type.

Primary outputs

Validation frameworks, proof criteria documents, Validation Primers

Coverage criteria

Category where the evidence asymmetry problem is structural — where decision-makers systematically lack the framework to distinguish verifiable claims from promotional assertions, and where a reusable framework would provide durable value

Framework components

Evidence class applicability by claim type, proof weight specifications, confirmation and refutation criteria, proof gap documentation standards, and correction pathway requirements

Update triggers

Material change in the category evidence environment, new evidence source types identified, correction record that reveals framework gaps, peer review feedback

Coverage Initiation Criteria

Market Proof Lab initiates coverage in a category when all of the following criteria are met. These criteria are applied before any category is added to active coverage, and the coverage initiation decision is documented in the changelog.

01
Verifiable evidence asymmetry exists. Vendor capability claims in the category cannot be independently confirmed through standard public-source research. Categories where vendor claims are already well-documented from independent public sources — where the evidence record is adequate — are deprioritized in favor of categories where the gap is larger.
02
Sufficient public evidence is available. The category must have enough publicly accessible evidence to support structured analysis. Categories where the available public evidence is too thin to support meaningful proof classification are not initiated, regardless of market size or decision-maker demand.
03
The category has meaningful decision-maker impact. The evidence asymmetry causes real harm — decision-makers acting on unverifiable vendor claims face material risk. Categories where the stakes of acting on unverified claims are higher are given coverage priority.
04
The Lab's research capacity is adequate. Coverage is not initiated if the research team cannot apply the proof framework with sufficient rigor to the category. Coverage initiated with inadequate research capacity produces lower-quality validation outputs that undermine the Lab's proof standards.
05
No undisclosed commercial conflict exists. Coverage is not initiated in a category where an undisclosed commercial relationship between the Lab and a vendor in that category would affect proof classification decisions. The conflict must be resolved before coverage begins, or the potential conflict must be fully disclosed.

Coverage Pipeline

The following categories are under consideration for coverage initiation. Pipeline status means the Lab has assessed that coverage initiation criteria may be met, but has not yet completed the proof framework design required to formally initiate coverage. Pipeline categories may be initiated, deprioritized, or removed based on evidence environment assessment and research capacity.

Pipeline

AI and Machine Learning Tools for Business

High evidence asymmetry: vendor capability claims for AI-powered business tools frequently cannot be independently verified from public sources, and the speed of market development means the evidence record lags significantly behind vendor marketing claims. Coverage initiation pending proof framework design for AI capability claim assessment.

Pipeline

Marketing Technology Platforms

Substantial evidence asymmetry in performance and ROI claim categories. Independent evidence for marketing technology performance claims is typically sparse — most available evidence is vendor-produced or sourced from vendor-commissioned case studies. Coverage initiation pending assessment of available independent evidence sources.

Pipeline

HR Technology and People Operations Software

Significant evidence asymmetry in outcome and compliance claim categories. People operations software vendors make substantial claims about employee outcomes, retention, and compliance that are frequently unverifiable from public sources. Coverage initiation pending evaluation of regulatory records and practitioner community evidence availability.

Pipeline

Cybersecurity Products and Services

Very high evidence asymmetry: security capability claims are among the most difficult to independently verify from public sources, and the stakes of acting on unverified security claims are among the highest. Coverage initiation pending determination of what public evidence sources are adequate for meaningful proof classification in this category.

Categories Not Covered

The following categories have been assessed and determined to be outside current Lab coverage scope. The rationale for exclusion is documented for each category. Exclusion decisions are reviewed annually and can be reversed if the evidence environment or the Lab's research capacity changes.

Not Covered

Consumer Product Reviews

Rationale: consumer product reviews are well-served by existing independent review ecosystems (Class 2 evidence sources are abundant and mature). The marginal value of Lab proof validation is low where adequate independent evidence already exists. Coverage would be initiated only if a specific consumer product category exhibited documented evidence asymmetry not addressed by existing review ecosystems.

Not Covered

Categories Where Public Evidence Is Structurally Insufficient

Rationale: some categories — particularly in early-stage markets, classified sectors, or markets where standard practices are confidential — have insufficient publicly accessible evidence to support meaningful proof classification. The Lab does not initiate coverage in these categories because the output quality would be too low to be useful. We document this as an exclusion rather than simply not covering the category, so that the absence of coverage is interpretable.

Not Covered

Individual Professional Assessments

Rationale: Market Proof Lab does not assess individual professionals' credentials, competence, or reputation. The Lab's proof framework is designed for organizational and product-level claims, not individual-level assessments. Individual assessments require privacy analysis and ethical frameworks outside the Lab's current research scope.

Research agenda updates

The research agenda is updated when coverage is initiated, categories are added to the pipeline, or pipeline categories are removed. All agenda changes are documented in the changelog. To suggest a category for coverage consideration, or to flag evidence asymmetry in a specific market, contact [email protected]. Category suggestions are assessed against the coverage initiation criteria described above.