Source every cell before it leaves the table: the page it was read from, the day it was fetched, and whether it implies a test — held for the named product marketing lead.
A page is fetched logged out, and the URL, the fetch time and the account state are stored with it.
02
A cell is filled, and it carries the claim type it was given: fact, test-implying or puffery.
Reason
03
A benchmark cell implies a test, and under Castrol the burden inverts, so it is held for a method.
04
A source ages past its term, and each cell drawn from it is marked stale ahead of export.
05
A rival ships what the table denies, and the cross is pulled, because 43(a)(1)(B) reaches it.
Decide
06
A prospect forwards a confidential contract, and it is quarantined: 1839(5)(A) needs no use.
07
A login would be needed to read the page, and the crawl stops, because contract is the exposure.
Out
08
A cell is exported to a battlecard, and the comparison, the page and the fetch date go with it.
09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
Fetching, sourcing and claim typing belong to the agent. Export belongs to a named marketing lead, and a cell already read aloud on a call is corrected, re-sourced and logged against the competitor.
Example workflow
One comparison, page to battlecard
AgentHuman
1Source material fetchedPricing pages, changelogs, product docs, job ads, review sites or public filings
2Provenance recordedThe URL, the fetch timestamp, the account state at fetch and the competitor it names
3Cells drafted and typedThe comparison, the claim type, the substantiation pointer and confidence
4Controls appliedSource-age checks, claim-type checks, export blocks and drafting confidence
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing reaches a rep at any of them — the agent is sourcing, and the marketing lane opens at the export gate.
5DecisionSplits at the export gate
Sourced and fresh
Goes to the named marketing lead to publish.
Anything test-implying
Adds a legal read first.
Marketing review
The cell is held with its source, its fetch date and the claim type it was given.
Publish · Append source · Send to legal review
Published — by the named marketing lead▼
6Enablement and CRM records updatedOnly where write access and publication policy allow it
7Outcome evaluatedSource currency, claim-type accuracy, legal amendments and what review found
Amendments
Each legal amendment is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Publishing a comparison claim to a customer.
Approving a battlecard for the field.
Deciding a benchmark cell is substantiated.
Signing off comparison copy for a public page.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Fetch the public page and stamp the time of fetch.
✓Bind each cell to the source URL and to the date it was fetched.
✓Mark each cell as fact, as test-implying or as ordinary puffery.
✓Hold each test-implying cell back from export.
Nothing reaches a rep except by a named marketing lead, inside the agreed boundaries.
Judging whether a source is reliable enough.
Telling a prospect a competitor lacks a feature.
Accepting a document a prospect forwarded.
Changes to the claim rules or export thresholds.
Example output
One comparison cell, annotated
An arbitration award disclosed in March 2026 found a vendor comparative dashcam benchmark literally false; below is one cell exactly as the agent leaves it.
Comparison output · single cellIllustrative example
Competitor
Recorded as
Claim type
Source of record
Confidence
Held for
Named rival, mid-market tier
Single sign-on shown as shipped
Fact, not test-implying
Pricing page, 3 August 2026
Held unexported
The named marketing lead, by name
As receivedRead from the competitor public page on the date stamped beside it — no disclaimer travels with it.
What the record holdsPublic pricing pagePublished changelogProduct documentation
Why no export hereWhether a cell may be spoken to a buyer is the marketing lead call.
ActionPublishAppend sourceSend to legal review
What the score decidesBelow the configured threshold a cell gets a legal read before the lead sees it.
Value
Where AI adds value
The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.
Where the value landsValue 01 – 04
Every comparisonFrom the page that carried it
03Sourcing
Where the cell is used
A competitive landscape agent tiers inputs against the hallmarks of an unlawful exchange; this one is what happens after the table becomes a battlecard and a rep says the line out loud.
01Approved path
A cell becomes a claim
Repeat it to a named prospect about a named competitor and it becomes commercial advertising. Internal use only is a data-loss control, not a defence. And in the EU, under Directive 2006/114/EC Art. 4, a cell the reader cannot verify is unlawful even when true.
02Human review
What was checked, and not found
No statute and no tort was found imposing a free-standing duty to be accurate about a competitor, and nothing in Annex III of the EU AI Act reaches this agent. Reverse engineering sits outside improper means at 18 U.S.C. 1839(6)(B), and internal analysis is unregulated however wrong.
04Build an evidence trail
The comparison, the page it was read from and the date it was fetched stay together.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Competitor public sourcesPricing pages · changelogs Documentation, job ads, status pages
Review and analyst sitesG2 · TrustRadius · Capterra Public review text and ratings
Sales and field intelligenceSalesforce · HubSpot · Gong Win-loss records and call transcripts
Agent
Competitive intelligence
Reads the page Fills the cell Holds for the lead
Enablement and CRMHighspot · Seismic · Showpad Battlecards and CRM competitor fields
A claim-level provenance figure can read clean while benchmark and performance cells carry most of the legal amendments. Nestack reports the amendment rate by claim type, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Benchmark and performance cells
10.3%
3.7×
Review
Security and compliance cells
7.3%
2.6×
Review
Pricing and packaging cells
4.6%
1.7×
Watch
Feature-presence cells
2.1%
0.8×
Normal
Bar: amendment-rate lift vs. feature-presence baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
A cross that stopped being true
A cycle shuts when the stale mark exported to a battlecard is a regression case. That suite is what the next table published is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Amendment rate rises on benchmark and performance cells.
02Diagnose
The cross in the SSO row, four months after they shipped it and read aloud on a Tuesday call, is traced back until one cause stands alone.
03Improve
Changes ship numbered, and the comparisons behind them travel attached.
04Verify
Each touched comparison case is run again, and one red holds it back.
05Learn
The case is kept, and the sourcing rules are amended in that same commit.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. The next table is published against a suite one case longer.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, sources, claim sourcing, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Comparison scope and automation-boundary definition.
02Competitor and public source assessment.
03Cell-to-battlecard and provenance-coverage mapping.
04Competitor source ingestion.
05Cell, source and claim-type binding.
06Confidence scoring and legal routing.
07Marketing lead export workflow.
08Enablement-system integration.
09Sourcing and claim cases.
10Guardrails and publication controls.
11Fetch-trail instrumentation.
12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.
12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallelFinal scope and sequence confirmed in discovery
Engagement tiers
What each tier includes
Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.
Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tierPilotOne competitor, one quarterProductionProduction enablement workflowAdvancedMultiple competitors / markets
Introduced at Pilot
Cell sourcing to your claim rules✓✓✓
Named marketing lead export✓✓✓
Competitor-source baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by claim type—✓✓
Legal review workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved write-back—✓✓
Crawl-and-enablement integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-source substantiation——✓
Cross-market battlecard packs——✓
Large competitor sets——✓
Multi-market comparison controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, competitor coverage, approval controls and deployment requirements.
Separate from buildBuild pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.
What we need from you
What you bring, and what we build with it
Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.
You bringWe build with it
01Your live competitors and the claims you make about each→Claim-rule capture and provenance designWeek 1
02Representative battlecards and comparison tables→Source binding, claim typing and the competitor baselineWeek 2
03Your publication path and the leads it names→Claim-rule mapping, source binding and the automation boundaryWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→Competitor and public source assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Cells you would not want deposed on→Claim cases and failure-mode testingWeek 4
06What no table may imply→Confidence scoring, legal routing, guardrails and export controlsWeek 3
07A named marketing lead who exports the cell→Export approval workflow, then pilot and production validationWeeks 5–6
Nothing else is requiredDeployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
A band is exactly as wide as its phase costs, so week five shows a pair where a blank would be neater.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Claim-rule discovery, provenance design and the automation boundaryW2Source integration and the competitor-source baselineW3Sourcing workflow, claim typing and export release controlsW4Evaluation suite, claim cases and failure-mode testingW5Enablement integration, pilot battlecards and targeted correctionsW6One competitive quarter run under the product marketing lead, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandA bar sits on the weeks its work is actually named in, and the week five pair is real.
At the end of W6Once the sourcing record validates, Agent Care takes the agent on.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Product AI agent
Build a competitive-intelligence agent around the cell your last battlecard could not source.
Show us one battlecard your reps read from and the sources behind its cells. The competitor named in it is the plaintiff, with standing, subpoena power and a commercial motive. NAD is cheaper still. A cell nobody can source comes back as an amendment.
