Editorial Guidelines and Fact-Checking Policy

Our published forecasts and studies combine three inputs: primary research with channel partners, software publishers, and investors; first-party benchmarking data gathered across more than two decades of advisory engagements; and published market data from established industry sources.

When the three disagree, we say so rather than averaging them into a false consensus. A forecast is a considered view of where the evidence points, not a guarantee, and we are explicit about the assumptions a given projection rests on.

Quantitative claims are checked against their original source before publication, not against a secondary citation of that source. Figures that move markets or shape strategy (market-cap shifts, multiple compression, spending forecasts, deal values) are traced back to the body that produced them.

Where a number is a directional estimate rather than a published figure, we label it as such in the text. We would rather flag a useful approximation honestly than present an estimate as a precise fact.

We prioritize primary and first-party sources: the organization that ran the study, the firm that reported the result, the filing that disclosed the figure. Industry analysts and research houses are cited by name in context so a reader knows whose read they are weighing.

We do not present competitor, vendor, or platform marketing material as independent evidence. When an interested party is the source of a claim, we attribute it to that party so its incentives are visible.

Before a forecast or study is published, it is reviewed by Partner Economics subject-matter experts: practitioners with direct operating experience in channel economics, partner business-model transition, and the mergers and acquisitions that reshape these businesses.

Review is substantive, not cosmetic. A reviewer can send a piece back for stronger evidence, a fairer treatment of an opposing view, or a clearer statement of uncertainty. Nothing is published over an unresolved factual objection from a reviewer.

If we get something wrong, we fix it. Material errors of fact are corrected in the published piece, and where a correction changes a conclusion we note what changed and when.

If you believe something we have published is inaccurate, write to us and we will look into it. Good research depends on being correctable, and we treat a credible challenge as a contribution rather than a complaint.

Our research is authored by the people who do the advisory work, not by anonymous staff writers. Each published study carries a named author whose background and standing in the field are stated openly, including a link to a verifiable professional profile.

We do this because expertise should be checkable. A reader is entitled to know who is making a claim, what they have done, and why their judgment on partner economics is worth weighing.