Example workshop
8Fictional public reviews; source S1.
Illustrative demo · fictional business and evidence
These figures explain the report format. They are not live data, client results, or verified market research.
REPUTATION X-RAY / SAMPLE REPORT
Example Workshop
Make the experience visible.
Explore how public reputation signals can become focused questions and a practical improvement plan.
Synthetic sample · no observation date · Prepared as an illustrative example · No connected accounts
01 / THE PROOF GAP
A question worth investigating.
In this invented example, a small review footprint suggests checking whether completed customers receive a consistent, neutral invitation to leave feedback. It does not establish that work is being lost.
Comparison group median
16Fictional counts: 12, 16 and 24; source S1.
Next step
ValidateCheck records before diagnosing a problem.
Synthetic comparison for layout only. Review counts measure visible volume, not quality, market share, or conversion.
02 / THE CUSTOMER JOURNEY
Where to ask better questions.
Fictional review themes assigned to one stage each. Reviewers’ reports do not establish operational facts or causation.
| Stage | Positive reviews | Concerns |
|---|---|---|
| Design & quote | 8 | 1 |
| Contract & payment | 2 | 1 |
| Production & updates | 3 | 3 |
| Delivery & installation | 7 | 2 |
| Aftercare | 4 | 1 |
03 / FINDINGS & NEXT MOVES
Evidence first. Action after review.
Each recommendation keeps its source, uncertainty, owner and measurement plan.
A smaller visible footprint
The fictional workshop has 8 reviews against a synthetic peer median of 16. This describes volume only.
Sources: S1
Evidence, limits & proposed action
- Limitations
- Invented counts; the peer group is not a market sample. No ratings or outcomes are inferred.
- Proposed action
- Confirm current listings, identity and review counts, then inspect feedback invitations for completed jobs.
- Suggested owner
- Business owner
- Measure
- Establish a real baseline of completed jobs and feedback invitations before setting a target.
- Review
- After 30 days; no task has been scheduled.
Updates may deserve attention
The synthetic journey includes 3 concerns about production and updates. That suggests a question, not a diagnosis of this business.
Sources: S2
Evidence, limits & proposed action
- Limitations
- Fictional, small and self-selected sample. A complaint is a reviewer statement, not a proven operational event.
- Proposed action
- Compare a sample of job timelines and customer communications; look for contrary examples.
- Suggested owner
- Operations lead
- Measure
- Record whether each sampled job received its agreed update. Baseline currently unknown.
- Review
- After 30 days; no task has been scheduled.
Ask consistently and neutrally
Propose inviting feedback from every eligible completed customer, regardless of satisfaction. No review growth is forecast.
Evidence, limits & proposed action
- Limitations
- A management proposal requiring feasibility and current platform-policy review. No automation is configured.
- Proposed action
- Agree eligibility and consent, review platform requirements, and approve a neutral feedback request before implementing.
- Suggested owner
- Customer experience lead
- Measure
- Proposed invitation coverage: 100% of eligible completed jobs. Review count is secondary and never guaranteed.
- Review
- After 90 days; no task has been scheduled.
04 / METHOD & SOURCES
What this report can support.
All businesses, counts and themes in this demo are fictional. The journey has 24 positive reviews and 8 concerns, each assigned to one stage. It is a separate synthetic corpus from the 8-review workshop metric. Positive themes and concerns are not causal evidence.
- S1 — Fictional listing comparison
Example Workshop: 8 reviews. Fictional comparison shops: 12, 16, 24 reviews. These names and counts were invented for this demonstration. Classification: synthetic. No external collection or verification occurred.
- S2 — Fictional customer journey coding
Five stages with positive counts 8, 2, 3, 7, 4 and concern counts 1, 1, 3, 2, 1. No customer statements or private details were used. Classification: synthetic. No external collection or verification occurred.
For real research, record the source URL, business and platform, capture date, review date and identifier, sampling window, exclusions, deduplication and coding decisions. Separate reviewer allegations, observed records, hypotheses and management goals. Retain contrary evidence. Do not infer revenue or lost sales from review counts.
Bring the questions into the business.
The JSON packet preserves these source references and proposed actions. The CSV is formatted for manual upload into the inspected Operator pilot’s existing CSV ingestion. No upload, AI analysis, task creation, Brain connection or external action occurs here.