A Note on How These Case Studies Are Produced and Why You Can Trust the Numbers.
The market research and consulting industry has a case study problem. Outcomes are exaggerated. Timelines are compressed. Client voices are invented. Numbers are approximate at best, fabricated at worst. We have built our case study documentation process to make all of that impossible.
Standard 01 — Verified Outcome Data Only
Every quantitative outcome cited in every SAI GENiUS case study — revenue figures, growth percentages, CAC benchmarks, fundraise amounts, margin improvements, timeline metrics — is verified against client-provided documentation before publication.
We do not accept verbal confirmation of outcomes. We request and review actual data: revenue reports, bank statements (redacted), investor term sheets, CAC tracking dashboards, or P&L excerpts — matched to the period in question.
If a client declines to share verification documentation, we omit the data point. We never estimate, approximate, or extrapolate.
Standard 02 — Explicit Written Permission
Every client featured in a SAI GENiUS case study has signed a Case Study Release Form — a specific, detailed written permission that defines exactly what information can be included, what must be modified for confidentiality, and what the client has reviewed and approved before publication.
If a client changes their mind after permission is granted, we remove the case study within 48 hours. No exceptions.
Standard 03 — Client Review Before Publication
Every case study is reviewed by the client in full before it is published. The client approves the narrative, the data, the quotes, and the strategic framing. If there is any factual dispute, the client’s version is the definitive version. We do not publish case studies that clients feel misrepresent their experience — even if our interpretation is technically accurate.
Standard 04 — The “Without Us” Counterfactual
Every SAI GENiUS case study includes an honest assessment of what would likely have happened without our research — because the value of intelligence is always measured against the alternative. Where we cannot confidently state the counterfactual (because the client had other advisors, was in a complex multi-factor situation, or the timeline is ambiguous), we say so directly.
We do not claim sole credit for complex business outcomes that involved many factors beyond our research.
Standard 05 — Anonymization Consistency
When clients request anonymization, we apply it consistently — the same pseudonymous description throughout the case study, no identifying combinations of sector + geography + revenue + funding stage that would make a company identifiable in context. We have had clients ask us not to publish case studies at all, and we have honored every such request without question.
