Trust & Verification
Separate claims from proofs
Companies state capabilities on websites and decks that ASUME cannot verify from public material alone. When a match line depends on an unverified claim, your team sees the gap in reasoning and chooses whether to wait for proof or weaken the score until evidence arrives.
The claims problem
Homepage stats, customer logos, and certification badges are marketing claims until verified. ASUME reads them as signals, not facts, and labels lines that lack supporting proof.
A strong keyword overlap should not automatically produce a five-dot match. Claims review exists so your team treats unverified statements honestly instead of letting them inflate pipeline quality.
What buyers see
In the claims demo, your team reviews a specific match line tied to an ENQ4 homepage stat. ASUME shows what was stated publicly, what was searched for, and what could not be connected to verifiable records.
The reasoning thread surfaces the proof gap in plain language. There is no separate 'claims review' screen hidden from the match card: the decision happens inside the same reasoning flow your team already uses.
- Claim text and where it was read
- Sources checked: site pages, docs, social posts, and releases
- Proof gap: what is missing to treat the line as verified
Wait or weaken
When proof is missing, ASUME asks how your team wants to score the line while waiting. You can hold strength and request documentation, or weaken the line for matches until the company responds.
Neither choice is hidden. The decision is recorded in the reasoning thread so downstream reviewers understand why a match stayed hot or cooled off.
- Wait for response: keep match strength, send an acknowledgement to the company
- Weaken for matches: reduce strength until scope and methodology are confirmed
Request to the company
Choosing 'wait' generates a structured request preview your team can send to the company. ASUME phrases the gap neutrally: what was observed, what could not be verified, and what documentation would help.
Companies can respond with methodology, customer references, or audit artifacts. When proof arrives, your team updates coverage and the match line can be re-scored with traceable history.
Impact on matching
Claims review protects ranking integrity. Accounts should rise because evidence supports your capability map, not because a headline sounded confident.
See industry examples for how verified vs unverified lines change yes, partial, and no outcomes across real GTM scenarios.