Category: T1–T8 · Ring: R1–R6 · Decision: PROFILE | MONITOR | LOG | DISCARD Logged:
· Last reviewed: · Owner:
Identification
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Full name | |
| Type | <company / lab / association / media / agency / practitioner / event / fund> |
| Based in | |
| Operating scope | <local / regional / national / international> |
| Founded | |
| Size | <headcount, or order of magnitude> |
| Website | |
| Languages | |
| How we found them | <seed source, or referenced by |
Scoring
| Factor | 1–5 | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Relevance | which sub-domains from the map | |
| Substance | do they publish numbers and method, or claims | |
| Proximity | can we realistically reach them | |
| Role | source / partner / supplier / competitor / channel | |
| Total |
What they do
Plain description. Their actual activity, not their positioning statement.
Domains covered
Map references from the domain map: W7, E4, A1 …
What they publish, and where
Every output channel — each one is a candidate feed for the watchlist.
| Channel | Type | Frequency | Language | Quality | Add to watchlist? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <site / blog / journal / podcast / YouTube / newsletter / reports / social> |
Notable outputs
Specific things worth reading, with links. Logged properly as source notes where substantive.
What they claim, and on what evidence
| Claim | Evidence they offer | Tier | Our assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
An actor making strong claims with no stated method is itself a finding — record it.
Business model / funding
How are they sustained? Who pays them, and for what? This predicts their bias more reliably than anything they say about themselves.
What they do NOT cover
Gaps, deliberate or otherwise. Assembled across many actors, this becomes the white-space analysis.
Who they reference
The fuel for the snowball. Direction and type of reference both matter.
| Actor referenced | Type | Already in registry? |
|---|---|---|
| <cites / partners with / funded by / member of / appears alongside / criticises> |
Who references them
| Actor | Type |
|---|---|
Many independent inbound references means this is a hub — profile it deeply.
Relationship potential
What could they be to us, concretely? Is there a first contact worth making, and what would we open with? Any existing connection into them?
Contact
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Key people | |
| Contact route | |
| Contact made | <date, by whom, outcome> |
Assessment
Two or three sentences. What they are really good at, what to take from them, what to be sceptical of.