# Source and Claim Register

Version 1.0.1 • 9 October 2026

This register preserves the evidence chain for the Playbook. Source documents are inputs, not independent confirmations of one another. Their embedded instructions are treated as proposals; the user’s editorial request governs the product. No new external research is included. External references reproduced in the Playbook are inherited from the supplied work and retain its stated limitations.

## Source inventory

| Code | Workstream and file | Scope and evidence caution |
|---|---|---|
| RES | AI Go-To-Market Systems Research.md | Research dossier; strong claims require RT corrections. |
| OS | The AI-Augmented Go-To-Market Operating System.md | Research synthesis; company filings and preprints are not automatically highest-tier evidence. |
| STR | AI-Augmented-GTM-Strategy.md | Commercial strategy; twelve principles and commercial loop. |
| SYS | AI-Augmented-GTM-Systems-Architecture.md | Systems architecture; proposed patterns, not an audited deployment. |
| GRW | AI-Augmented-GTM-Growth-and-Performance-Architecture.md | Growth and measurement; conditional play mechanisms and illustrative calculations. |
| AGT | AI-Agent-and-Automation-Operating-Architecture.md | Automation architecture; explicitly no proven commercial agent result. |
| OPS | AI-Augmented-GTM-Operating-Model-and-Transformation-Plan.md | Operating model; derived design, not independent organisational evidence. |
| RT | AI-Augmented-GTM-Red-Team-Verdict.md | Red Team; claim audit, investment challenge and simplification. |
| RTB | AI-Augmented-GTM-Playbook-Editor-Brief.md | Red Team summary; same workstream as RT, not corroboration. |

Source snapshot: nine documents, seven workstreams, 120,877 words. Section references below use the source documents’ own numbering. SHA-256 fingerprints record the exact local editions reviewed.

## Claim classifications

Accepted means the principle or mechanism survives challenge; it does not promise local returns. Accepted with conditions states prerequisites. Qualified narrows a former claim. Advanced requires substantial readiness. Experimental requires a capped comparison. Unresolved means the evidence cannot settle the claim. Rejected excludes a recommendation from the product.

Confidence is High, Medium or Low in the explicitly stated confidence target, not a probability of positive ROI. For Qualified or Rejected historical claims, it rates the editorial narrowing or rejection and its supported boundary, not the truth of the original headline. Preserve the historical headline and treatment together. Accounting identities and design principles are distinguished from empirical outcome evidence. Framework destinations use the final chapter, play and toolkit IDs.

## Source to Playbook traceability and claim ledger

The rows consolidate material recurring concepts. Each qualification records the relevant contradiction or limit; repeated specialist terms map to one destination rather than creating duplicate frameworks. Implementation significance is expressed by the destination and the operating condition.

### C01 Contribution and cash govern investment

**Status:** Accepted. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Preserve.
**Source:** STR §17; GRW §§1–7; RT §§12–18. **Evidence level:** Economic identity.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Value revenue through relevant costs and a declared horizon; no guaranteed return.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 2; P01; T2.

### C02 Repair the binding growth constraint

**Status:** Accepted. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Preserve.
**Source:** STR §§10,13–15; GRW §§8,26–36; RT §§5,66. **Evidence level:** Commercial mechanism.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Product, proposition, service and capacity compete with media changes.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 4; P02.

### C03 Seven-stage GTM loop

**Status:** Accepted with conditions. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Simplify.
**Source:** STR §7; SYS §18; RT §§9,65–66. **Evidence level:** Management model.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** A mnemonic for accountable work, not evidence of AI superiority or required infrastructure.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 3; all plays.

### C04 Connected decision systems are the dominant AI value pool

**Status:** Rejected. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Delete.
**Confidence target:** Editorial rejected of the historical claim. Supported boundary: No head-to-head portfolio evidence; content savings may dominate locally.
**Source:** RES §§1,14; OS §§1,4; RT §§7–12,50. **Evidence level:** Unsupported generalisation.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** No head-to-head portfolio evidence; content savings may dominate locally.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Report F.

### C05 Routine media recovery and conversion uplift ranges

**Status:** Rejected. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Delete.
**Confidence target:** Editorial rejected of the historical claim. Supported boundary: No universal 20–40%, 25–50% or 10–25% planning assumptions.
**Source:** RES §14; RT §50. **Evidence level:** Selected cases extrapolated.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** No universal 20–40%, 25–50% or 10–25% planning assumptions.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Report F.

### C06 Separate process, AI and coordination gains

**Status:** Accepted. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Preserve.
**Source:** GRW opening falsification; RT §§9,15. **Evidence level:** Comparative investment logic.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Compare current practice A, repaired conventional B, B plus AI C, and added integration D.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 2; P10; T2.

### C07 Hours saved become financial savings

**Status:** Qualified. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Qualify.
**Confidence target:** Editorial qualified of the historical claim. Supported boundary: Capacity stays separate until expenditure disappears or useful redeployment is observed.
**Source:** OS §14; OPS §§21,43; RT §14. **Evidence level:** Accounting distinction.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Capacity stays separate until expenditure disappears or useful redeployment is observed.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 2; P10; T2.

### C08 Five-year ownership and exit cost

**Status:** Accepted. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Preserve.
**Source:** SYS §34; AGT §65; OPS §43; RT §§13–17. **Evidence level:** Cost model, local amounts absent.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Separate cash from staff opportunity cost; count shared cost once.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 2; T2; T5.

### C09 Observed, predicted and incremental customer value

**Status:** Accepted. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Preserve.
**Source:** STR §17; GRW §§4–5,17–18; RT §18. **Evidence level:** Measurement distinction.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Observed cohort value is the starting point; prediction does not establish treatment effect.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 2; P03; P07.

### C10 Individual predicted cLTV for acquisition

**Status:** Advanced. **Confidence:** Medium. **Editorial verdict:** Move to advanced.
**Source:** GRW §§5,7,17; SYS §8; RT §§18,24. **Evidence level:** Established method, local utility unknown.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Temporal validation, reliable contribution and improved prospective decisions required.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 8; P03.

### C11 Individual uplift and treatment optimisation

**Status:** Advanced. **Confidence:** Medium. **Editorial verdict:** Move to advanced.
**Source:** GRW §§18,30–31; RT §§18,67,69. **Evidence level:** Causal method with demanding data.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Treatment variation, adequate outcomes and prospective benefit; cohort rules are valid end states.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 8; P07.

### C12 Precise next-dollar optimisation

**Status:** Qualified. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Qualify.
**Confidence target:** Editorial qualified of the historical claim. Supported boundary: Use the next feasible investment tranche, ranges, real budget rights and protected commitments.
**Source:** STR §18; GRW §§49–51; RT §§19,23. **Evidence level:** Economic principle, uncertain estimates.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Use the next feasible investment tranche, ranges, real budget rights and protected commitments.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 5; P11; T2.

### C13 Attribution estimates causality

**Status:** Rejected. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Delete.
**Confidence target:** Editorial rejected of the historical claim. Supported boundary: Attribution assigns credit; causal claims need a defensible design and assumptions.
**Source:** RES §§2,5; GRW §§42–45; RT §20. **Evidence level:** Contradicted by identification limits.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Attribution assigns credit; causal claims need a defensible design and assumptions.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 7; P04.

### C14 Experiments inform material choices

**Status:** Accepted with conditions. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Preserve.
**Source:** STR §22; GRW §§37–43; RT §§21–22. **Evidence level:** Established method; feasibility conditional.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Check power, interference, delay and value of information before exposure.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 7; P04; T3.

### C15 Every decision should be experimentally validated

**Status:** Qualified. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Qualify.
**Confidence target:** Editorial qualified of the historical claim. Supported boundary: Repair obvious defects; use qualified observation or judgement when testing cannot inform the choice.
**Source:** OS §17; RT §§21–22. **Evidence level:** Proportionality.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Repair obvious defects; use qualified observation or judgement when testing cannot inform the choice.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 7; P02.

### C16 Bandits replace A/B tests

**Status:** Rejected. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Delete.
**Confidence target:** Editorial rejected of the historical claim. Supported boundary: Adaptive allocation is optional and does not create sample size or automatic causal validity.
**Source:** RES §17; GRW §38; RT §22. **Evidence level:** Different optimisation and inference purposes.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Adaptive allocation is optional and does not create sample size or automatic causal validity.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 7; Report F.

### C17 Measurement triangulation

**Status:** Accepted. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Preserve.
**Source:** GRW §§42–47; SYS §16; RT §§20–23. **Evidence level:** Complementary measurement methods.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Reconcile estimands, periods and assumptions; do not average lenses into truth.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 7; T3.

### C18 Customer quality and native value signals

**Status:** Accepted with conditions. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Preserve.
**Source:** STR §§12,16; GRW §§7,10,17; RT §24. **Evidence level:** Economic mechanism and documented capability.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Native functionality is an option, not a proven local uplift; use verified cohort signals.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** P03.

### C19 Activation means customer experienced value

**Status:** Accepted. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Preserve.
**Source:** STR §13; GRW §28. **Evidence level:** Commercial mechanism.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Validate leading milestone against retained value; do not label the association causal.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 6; P06.

### C20 Churn risk identifies preventable churn

**Status:** Qualified. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Qualify.
**Confidence target:** Editorial qualified of the historical claim. Supported boundary: Identify addressable causes and compare repair, education, offer and no treatment.
**Source:** STR §14; GRW §§18,31; RT §18. **Evidence level:** Prediction versus intervention.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Identify addressable causes and compare repair, education, offer and no treatment.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** P07.

### C21 Offers, suppression and no contact

**Status:** Accepted with conditions. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Preserve.
**Source:** GRW §§19,21,30–36; RT §24. **Evidence level:** Treatment economics.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Mandatory eligibility checks are not experimental; economic suppression may be tested lawfully.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** P07; P08; T4.

### C22 Creative features cause performance differences

**Status:** Qualified. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Qualify.
**Confidence target:** Editorial qualified of the historical claim. Supported boundary: Tags generate hypotheses; controlled concept tests assess effects.
**Source:** GRW §§22–25; RT §§24,50. **Evidence level:** Confounded delivery and provider evidence.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Tags generate hypotheses; controlled concept tests assess effects.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** P05.

### C23 Generative production can reduce accepted-work cost

**Status:** Accepted with conditions. **Confidence:** Medium. **Editorial verdict:** Preserve.
**Source:** OS §§6,11; OPS §17; RT §§14,50. **Evidence level:** Scoped task and company evidence.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Include review, rework, rights, quality and actual expense realisation.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** P05; P10.

### C24 Expansion, usage, referral and win-back

**Status:** Accepted with conditions. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Preserve.
**Source:** STR §15; GRW §§32–36. **Evidence level:** Commercial mechanisms.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Use customer need and net account contribution; account for cannibalisation, fraud and repeat churn.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** P08.

### C25 AI search visibility produces commercial ROI

**Status:** Unresolved. **Confidence:** Low. **Editorial verdict:** Move to experimental.
**Source:** GRW §14; RT §§53–54. **Evidence level:** Descriptive monitoring; no general counterfactual.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Monitor dated observations only; no standalone GEO return claim.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 12; P09.

### C26 SQL, rules and native execution first

**Status:** Accepted. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Preserve.
**Source:** SYS §§8,11,14; AGT §§1–5,75; RT §§27,31,33. **Evidence level:** Mature technical pattern.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Choose the cheapest reliable method for the decision; no forced automation where volume is low.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 3; Core 9; P10.

### C27 A default portfolio of five agents

**Status:** Rejected. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Delete.
**Confidence target:** Editorial rejected of the historical claim. Supported boundary: One selected workflow; zero required agents; at most one candidate without a separate capacity case.
**Source:** AGT executive decision; STR §25; RT §§33–34. **Evidence level:** No local comparative evidence.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** One selected workflow; zero required agents; at most one candidate without a separate capacity case.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Report F; Core 9.

### C28 Read-only customer, market or performance assistance

**Status:** Accepted with conditions. **Confidence:** Medium. **Editorial verdict:** Preserve.
**Source:** AGT §§33–37,74; RT §34. **Evidence level:** Plausible unstructured-work mechanism.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Begin with fixed extraction/runbooks; benchmark accepted work and source accuracy.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** P09; P10; prompts.

### C29 Creative Intelligence build now

**Status:** Qualified. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Qualify.
**Confidence target:** Editorial qualified of the historical claim. Supported boundary: Optional pilot after a baseline, never an automatic build instruction.
**Source:** AGT §§38,74; RT §81. **Evidence level:** Internal sequencing conflict.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Optional pilot after a baseline, never an automatic build instruction.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** P05; ER04.

### C30 Agent for audience, measurement or campaign publishing

**Status:** Rejected. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Delete.
**Confidence target:** Editorial rejected of the historical claim. Supported boundary: Keep the capability as SQL, tested statistical code or exact approved publishing.
**Source:** AGT §75; RT §34. **Evidence level:** Simpler exact mechanisms sufficient.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Keep the capability as SQL, tested statistical code or exact approved publishing.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 9.

### C31 Multi-agent collaboration as default

**Status:** Experimental. **Confidence:** Low. **Editorial verdict:** Move to experimental.
**Source:** RES §7; SYS §14; AGT §§45–48; RT §35. **Evidence level:** Design rationale, no general commercial proof.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Isolation or context benefit must beat a single workflow after handoff and maintenance costs.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 12.

### C32 Autonomous strategic and material budget authority

**Status:** Rejected. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Delete.
**Confidence target:** Editorial rejected of the historical claim. Supported boundary: Human authority remains for strategy, major investment, pricing and novel claims.
**Source:** RES §§16–17; AGT §§28–32; RT §§36,40. **Evidence level:** Broad risk and missing economic evidence.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Human authority remains for strategy, major investment, pricing and novel claims.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 9.

### C33 Bounded dynamic tool use

**Status:** Advanced. **Confidence:** Medium. **Editorial verdict:** Move to advanced.
**Source:** SYS §12; AGT §§1,4,56–61; RT §§33,38. **Evidence level:** Technical feasibility, local value unknown.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Dynamic path must beat fixed workflow; explicit scopes, evaluation, stop and support.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 9; T4.

### C34 Removing human approval creates value

**Status:** Experimental. **Confidence:** Low. **Editorial verdict:** Move to experimental.
**Source:** AGT §§28–32; RT §36. **Evidence level:** Unproven autonomy premium.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Compare the same intervention with approval; quantify delay and review cost versus added exposure.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 9; T4.

### C35 Human approval is sufficient safety

**Status:** Qualified. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Qualify.
**Confidence target:** Editorial qualified of the historical claim. Supported boundary: Reviewer authority, capacity and inspectable evidence plus independent technical limits.
**Source:** AGT §§23–27; OPS §32; RT §37. **Evidence level:** Control design with human limits.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Reviewer authority, capacity and inspectable evidence plus independent technical limits.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 10; T4.

### C36 Model self-confidence grants permission

**Status:** Rejected. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Delete.
**Confidence target:** Editorial rejected of the historical claim. Supported boundary: Use empirical evaluation by risk slice and enforced action policy.
**Source:** AGT §31; RT §38. **Evidence level:** Uncalibrated assertion.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Use empirical evaluation by risk slice and enforced action policy.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 9; T4.

### C37 External content is data and action authority is separate

**Status:** Accepted. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Preserve.
**Source:** SYS §§20–22; AGT §§20–24; RT §39. **Evidence level:** Security and control pattern.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Validate scope, current state, destination and exact approved action outside the model.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 9; T4.

### C38 Receipts, idempotency and unknown execution states

**Status:** Accepted with conditions. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Preserve.
**Source:** SYS §15; AGT §24 and contract pack. **Evidence level:** Distributed execution pattern.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Required for relevant machine writes; query indeterminate state before retrying.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 12; T4.

### C39 A custom Control Plane is foundational

**Status:** Qualified. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Move to advanced.
**Confidence target:** Editorial qualified of the historical claim. Supported boundary: Keep common controls; use existing tools first; price a separate coordination case.
**Source:** RES §5; STR §27; SYS §§19,29,43; RT §§25–27. **Evidence level:** Logical requirements versus physical build.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Keep common controls; use existing tools first; price a separate coordination case.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 8; ER02.

### C40 Graph, vector and stream infrastructure as mandatory

**Status:** Rejected. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Delete.
**Confidence target:** Editorial rejected of the historical claim. Supported boundary: Optional components need query, retrieval or latency evidence and ownership economics.
**Source:** RES §5; SYS §§4,9,29; RT §§29–30. **Evidence level:** Unjustified universal architecture.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Optional components need query, retrieval or latency evidence and ownership economics.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Report F.

### C41 Real-time architecture

**Status:** Advanced. **Confidence:** Medium. **Editorial verdict:** Move to advanced.
**Source:** SYS §4; AGT §66; RT §30. **Evidence level:** Decision latency mechanism.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Native time-critical checks first; batch slower decisions; measure value lost through delay.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 8.

### C42 Minimal decision and evidence memory

**Status:** Accepted with conditions. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Simplify.
**Source:** STR §23; SYS §9; OPS §38; RT §28. **Evidence level:** Useful recordkeeping, unpriced reuse.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** One record with scope, contradiction and expiry; measure useful reuse before expansion.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 7; T3.

### C43 First-party data or a graph guarantees a moat

**Status:** Rejected. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Delete.
**Confidence target:** Editorial rejected of the historical claim. Supported boundary: Exclusive evidence must improve repeat decisions and resist imitation before any moat claim.
**Source:** STR §11; RES §5; RT §§11,29. **Evidence level:** No demonstrated durable advantage.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Exclusive evidence must improve repeat decisions and resist imitation before any moat claim.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 12.

### C44 Federated organisation as universal default

**Status:** Qualified. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Qualify.
**Confidence target:** Editorial qualified of the historical claim. Supported boundary: Begin in current functions; structural change needs recurring work, authority and net coordination value.
**Source:** OPS §§10–11; RT §§41–44. **Evidence level:** Design without comparative evidence.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Begin in current functions; structural change needs recurring work, authority and net coordination value.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 10.

### C45 Pods, CoE and new job titles

**Status:** Advanced. **Confidence:** Medium. **Editorial verdict:** Move to advanced.
**Source:** STR §29; OPS §§14,20; RT §§42–44. **Evidence level:** Workload-dependent organisational design.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Accountabilities required; new permanent teams and titles are not.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 10; T5.

### C46 One owner and genuine resource authority

**Status:** Accepted. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Preserve.
**Source:** OPS §§22–26,47; RT §§47–48. **Evidence level:** Execution mechanism.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Name a final decision owner and real Finance/delivery approvals; test an actual action.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 10; P11.

### C47 Roadmap dates and separate specialist workstreams

**Status:** Qualified. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Simplify.
**Confidence target:** Editorial qualified of the historical claim. Supported boundary: One capacity plan and named gates; dates are review windows, not proof deadlines.
**Source:** STR §35; SYS §33; AGT §70; OPS §§56,63–67; RT §48. **Evidence level:** Uncosted parallel capacity.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** One capacity plan and named gates; dates are review windows, not proof deadlines.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Implementation; ER06.

### C48 Maturity measures AI and autonomy intensity

**Status:** Rejected. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Delete.
**Confidence target:** Editorial rejected of the historical claim. Supported boundary: Readiness per capability and target play; no overall maturity or autonomy-level arithmetic.
**Source:** OS §13; STR §36; OPS §50; RT §§36,81. **Evidence level:** Incompatible scales and goal confusion.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Readiness per capability and target play; no overall maturity or autonomy-level arithmetic.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 4; T5.

### C49 Retire old work and fund maintenance

**Status:** Accepted. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Preserve.
**Source:** OPS §§43,60–61,79; RT §§32,48. **Evidence level:** Ownership economics.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Keep explicit closure, export, support and fallback responsibilities.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** P12; T5.

### C50 Provider cases establish general ROI

**Status:** Rejected. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Delete.
**Confidence target:** Editorial rejected of the historical claim. Supported boundary: Use scoped teaching examples; do not upgrade repeated/vendor evidence.
**Source:** RES §11; OS §11; RT §§49–52. **Evidence level:** Evidence scope and commercial interest.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Use scoped teaching examples; do not upgrade repeated/vendor evidence.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 12; Report F.

### C51 Unilever production example

**Status:** Accepted with conditions. **Confidence:** Medium. **Editorial verdict:** Qualify.
**Source:** OS §11; RT §50. **Evidence level:** Company-reported case.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Illustrates production workflow economics, not audited causal sales or orchestration ROI.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 12.
**Primary citation:** [Unilever reinvents product shoots with digital twins and AI](https://www.unilever.com/news/press-and-media/press-releases/2025/unilever-reinvents-product-shoots-with-digital-twins-and-ai/). Unilever. Publication date: 2025-03-18 (day precision). Evidence: Tier 3; independent: No. Existing-source check: 9 October 2026; scope and access limits remain as recorded by Editorial & Evidence QA.

### C52 Booking.com ML example

**Status:** Accepted with conditions. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Preserve.
**Source:** OS §11; RT §§7,50–51. **Evidence level:** Primary practitioner paper, selected successes.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Teaches experiment-linked deployment; not average success rate or modern-agent return.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 12.
**Primary citation:** [150 successful Machine Learning models: 6 lessons learned at Booking.com](https://www.kdd.org/kdd2019/accepted-papers/view/150-successful-machine-learning-models-6-lessons-learned-at-booking.com). KDD 2019 / ACM conference programme. Publication date: 2019 (year precision). Evidence: Tier 2; independent: No. Existing-source check: 9 October 2026; scope and access limits remain as recorded by Editorial & Evidence QA.

### C53 Uber quantified savings example

**Status:** Unresolved. **Confidence:** Low. **Editorial verdict:** Delete.
**Source:** RES §11; RT §50. **Evidence level:** Primary amount and design unverified.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Exclude from publication pending primary methods; exclusion does not assert the claim is false.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Report F; issues.

### C54 Avoided incentives and cLTV notation

**Status:** Qualified. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Qualify.
**Confidence target:** Editorial qualified of the historical claim. Supported boundary: Avoided cost increases profit once; discount and sum all relevant future cost consistently.
**Source:** OS §14; GRW §5; RT §15. **Evidence level:** Arithmetic and cost-scope correction.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Avoided cost increases profit once; discount and sum all relevant future cost consistently.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 2; ER07.

### C55 Retention worked example projection

**Status:** Qualified. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Qualify.
**Confidence target:** Editorial qualified of the historical claim. Supported boundary: 2-point effect implies 100 in 5,000 treated, or 200 in a separate 10,000-treatment rollout.
**Source:** GRW §§41,43. **Evidence level:** Arithmetic distinction; cost basis ambiguous.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** 2-point effect implies 100 in 5,000 treated, or 200 in a separate 10,000-treatment rollout.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 7; ER08.

### C56 Closed loop guarantees improvement

**Status:** Qualified. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Qualify.
**Confidence target:** Editorial qualified of the historical claim. Supported boundary: Outcomes must inform the next decision; objective, measurement, constraints, owner and stop remain explicit.
**Source:** STR §7; SYS §18; AGT §69; RT §40. **Evidence level:** Feedback can reinforce bias.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Outcomes must inform the next decision; objective, measurement, constraints, owner and stop remain explicit.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 3; T4.

### C57 Legal compliance certified by model

**Status:** Rejected. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Delete.
**Confidence target:** Editorial rejected of the historical claim. Supported boundary: Model flags support qualified review; it is never the legal or policy authority.
**Source:** RES §§7,12; SYS §8; AGT §§20–23; RT §§54,71. **Evidence level:** Authority and verification limits.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Model flags support qualified review; it is never the legal or policy authority.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 9.

### C58 Priority score products imply investment rank

**Status:** Rejected. **Confidence:** High. **Editorial verdict:** Delete.
**Confidence target:** Editorial rejected of the historical claim. Supported boundary: Use qualitative screening and local value ranges with hard vetoes; no synthetic ROI score.
**Source:** AGT §74; GRW §39; RT §71. **Evidence level:** Ordinal scales lack currency meaning.
**Commercial relevance and implementation:** Use qualitative screening and local value ranges with hard vetoes; no synthetic ROI score.
**Canonical destination and duplication control:** Core 5; play index.

## Source locations and fingerprints

### OS

File: [RC1 programme source archive]/Research/The AI-Augmented Go-To-Market Operating System.md

SHA-256: `949099d2488f60c7d4aabeb2a647e3a8e8a715a7fcac847c42aaaf05c397d809`

### RES

File: [RC1 programme source archive]/Research/AI Go-To-Market Systems Research.md

SHA-256: `cf7a472758d580b088ff65e83c09d3e1f09f228cfde57d36c960a262d45ff4ed`

### OPS

File: [RC1 programme source archive]/Operating Model/AI-Augmented-GTM-Operating-Model-and-Transformation-Plan.md

SHA-256: `0783ede8dc81ba55f4aa3357074a6244cf33579ea4f496f0b7d1b4ff1f093713`

### GRW

File: [RC1 programme source archive]/Architecture/AI-Augmented-GTM-Growth-and-Performance-Architecture.md

SHA-256: `b49ed9bb174586e0cffb6e1acd0e6c7d907818ad8a5c877f08100325c23a3b37`

### AGT

File: [RC1 programme source archive]/Architecture/AI-Agent-and-Automation-Operating-Architecture.md

SHA-256: `26c5214c808108dcb599a067d2967f4bfa96324165c62b26728f1b05f39bd9cb`

### SYS

File: [RC1 programme source archive]/Architecture/AI-Augmented-GTM-Systems-Architecture.md

SHA-256: `890a61c7167f5e2d6d4dbde1019bbf51661981cb8ec3fc5b310948a55fee5065`

### RTB

File: [RC1 programme source archive]/Red Team/AI-Augmented-GTM-Playbook-Editor-Brief.md

SHA-256: `48d1fd5c4b0a2f64bb211a73d2316c8b60d3f41b49d6c65f2a31e4c3359b11f2`

### RT

File: [RC1 programme source archive]/Red Team/AI-Augmented-GTM-Red-Team-Verdict.md

SHA-256: `f203c995b06f3c8bceed2777a1cf18e184ea80f01cfd8d1ef26df35f2e99a4cc`

### STR

File: [RC1 programme source archive]/Strategy/AI-Augmented-GTM-Strategy.md

SHA-256: `6131ccdb1eea439c4fa728bc3806f98c56f5c88128a19c4e19dfeafc8495df39`