Evidence Gaps

Buyer-side claims review asks whether your team should trust a line. Company-facing evidence gaps answer a different question: what did ASUME read but could not confirm on the supplier profile?

The gaps panel is intentionally not a match card. It is a profile view for the company being evaluated, focused on documentation they can add to improve coverage.

Coverage summarizes how much of a company profile ASUME could confirm from available material. Partial and not-confirmed statements are counted explicitly so teams see progress over time.

A 68% coverage score with four open gaps is more useful than a single opaque grade. It tells both sides where effort will change match outcomes.

Each gap item names a statement ASUME encountered, where it was read, and the current status. Status is never binary marketing language; it reflects what a reviewer could actually verify.

Gaps stagger into view during the demo to mirror how coverage builds as ASUME finishes reading a profile. In product, the list updates as new sources connect or documents upload.

Every gap includes a concrete suggestion: link a Trust Center report, publish API docs, upload a regional org chart, or attach a customer reference that closes the loop.

Suggestions are actionable on purpose. Companies should know the next document to produce, not receive a vague 'improve your profile' note.

Stronger evidence coverage improves how a company ranks in buyer matches. ASUME shows exactly what to add so suppliers can prioritize fixes that move scores, not cosmetic site edits.

Buyers still use claims review when a line is unverified at decision time. Gaps help companies close those lines proactively.