Show what was actually consulted, not a story written after the answer.
2c · show the facts
A reason someone can check
Start with the example, then try it yourself. The last case is optional practice.
Meet Maya.
Maya helps turn an unclear request into a decision: what needs answering, which evidence matters, and who can act on the result.
Maya · Decision designer
The case
An explanation that reads well and checks nothing
An explanation is useful when a person can trace its claims to values, sources, and the time they were observed.
Explanation
"Classified as a strong fit given the company’s enterprise scale..."
Seller read it
Agreed, and worked the record
Outcome
Went nowhere
Company size
Well below the threshold, on the record the whole time
Produced
After the outcome was chosen
Your task
Open the source cards and choose a citation for each claim. Then compare what a later source update changes.
Need a little guidance?
You’re done when: Every claim in the explanation points to visible evidence.
An explanation is useful only when another person can check it.
Need a reminder? Reopen the worked example
Watch one example first
The decision used account revenue of $6M observed on August 1. A company page now says $9M. Its explanation should cite the $6M decision-time value and show $9M as a later observation.
Why this follows from the evidence
An explanation reconstructs what was used, not what would make the result sound right today. Source and observation time let a reviewer verify that distinction.
GTM Lab
Saved locally
Review Policy · 0 of 8 sections started
Saved locally to your browser.
Case evidence
An explanation that reads well and checks nothing
Explanation
"Classified as a strong fit given the company’s enterprise scale..."
Seller read it
Agreed, and worked the record
Outcome
Went nowhere
Company size
Well below the threshold, on the record the whole time
Produced
After the outcome was chosen
The explanation reads well. A seller agreed with it and worked a record whose company size was below the threshold the whole time.
Review workbench
Attach evidence to the explanation
Open both source cards, cite the decision-time revenue and original message, then handle a changed source without rewriting history.
Source cards · inspect before citingCompare each statement with its source. The labels show the state of this example.
Decision-time revenue
Open this card to inspect the value and timestamp.
Source: Matched CRM account
Not checked
Intent evidence
Open this card to inspect what the person actually wrote.
Source: Original form submission
Not checked
Original evidence versus current sourceCompare the original state with the proposed change. This preview does not change live records.
Original evidence versus current source
Item
Before
Current view
Why
Annual revenue
Below threshold · matched account · 41 days before decision
No later observation supplied
The original result must keep the inputs it actually consulted.
Record display
Decision-time value, source, observation time
Choose how to handle a changed source.
A new observation supports a new evaluation, not a rewritten account of the earlier one.
Annual revenue
BeforeBelow threshold · matched account · 41 days before decision
Current viewNo later observation supplied
WhyThe original result must keep the inputs it actually consulted.
Record display
BeforeDecision-time value, source, observation time
Current viewChoose how to handle a changed source.
WhyA new observation supports a new evaluation, not a rewritten account of the earlier one.
Changes save in this browser as you work.
Optional: inspect the chapter check choices
Work the case · 0 of 2 sections drafted
Show what was consulted
Compare these alternatives one section at a time. Check a choice to see its consequence; the draft summary below keeps the proposed changes together.
Step 1 of 2
What separates an explanation from a rationalization?
This is a proposed draft until the chapter check runs. Selecting a choice alone does not complete the chapter.
