Side-by-side test and what it would replace

Jordan, Following the demo and the conversations since, I'd like to propose a side-by-side test. We take a small set of national contractor accounts and build the same view twice: once in the analytics suite we already run, and once in your brain. Same accounts, same questions, same people judging the result. My aim is simple. I want a fair answer on whether branch, national accounts and credit end up looking at one picture of each contractor, and how much effort it takes either way. I've copied Laura so she sees the proposal from the start. Could you and Hannah outline what you'd need from us to set it up, and how long you think it would run? Best, Carlos

Carlos, Laura, Thanks for the clear proposal, Carlos. We're glad to do it. A like-for-like test is the right way to settle this. Here's what we'd need: read access to the sources behind the chosen contractor accounts, a named person on your side to agree the questions up front, and agreement on how we judge the result before anyone looks at it. Hannah will set out the connector side and I'll send a short plan so everyone can see the same thing. To be transparent, I'd rather agree the success measures first than argue about them afterwards. Laura, if there's a measure you care about most, tell us and we'll build it in. Thanks, Jordan

Jordan, Thanks, that works for me. Before you build the plan, Laura asked me to put her question to you directly, because it's fair and it affects how we design the test. Her question: why would Etowah Lane pay for two tools? What does this do that we don't already pay for, and what would it replace rather than sit next to? I don't think the test answers that by itself, so please address it head on in the plan. If the answer is that it replaces something, say what. If it doesn't, we should know that now. Best, Carlos