← Every exhibit
Two bounded marketplace governance packages
A platform's role, governance mechanism, structural condition, and measured outcome should travel together.
| Governance record | Structural condition | Reported reading | What it does not prove |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monitoring plus platform investment | Infrastructure supports the rule and the platform observes participant conduct | The monitoring-performance association is strengthened in the Sen et al. study | It does not prove higher platform profit or a causal effect in every market |
| Procedural fairness plus self-participation | The platform participates and must make its process credible to affected parties | The fairness-performance association is strengthened in the Sen et al. study | It does not erase the platform's incentive conflict or prove neutrality |
| Role and data ledger | The platform is rule-maker, intermediary, participant, and data holder where applicable | The organization can state who sees what and who decides | Disclosure does not prove fair use or improved performance |
| Outcome ledger | Seller performance, buyer experience, participant access, and platform economics remain separate | The evidence can be matched to the decision it informs | One outcome cannot stand in for the others |
Swipe or scroll horizontally if the table is wider than your screen.
Reference & Evidence
Source: Sen, Kumar, Dubey & Gupta (2023), Rösch (2024), and Homburg, Vomberg & Muehlhaeuser (2020). The packages and ledger fields are the author's synthesis; the table does not promise platform or seller financial performance.
Each line is a claim from the register this journal publishes against, resolved from the register at build time.
- B A two-sided B2B electronic market is a triadic system with a platform firm coordinating buyer and seller participants Sen, Kumar, Dubey & Gupta. (2023) ·
SKDG23-C1 - B In the reported model, platform monitoring and procedural fairness are positively associated with buyer-perceived seller performance Sen, Kumar, Dubey & Gupta. (2023) ·
SKDG23-C2 - B Platform self-participation weakens the positive monitoring-performance association and strengthens the positive procedural-fairness-performance association Sen, Kumar, Dubey & Gupta. (2023) ·
SKDG23-C3 - B Platform investments strengthen the positive monitoring-performance association and weaken the positive procedural-fairness-performance association Sen, Kumar, Dubey & Gupta. (2023) ·
SKDG23-C4 - B The two-wave study retains 184 usable buyer-side responses covering 82 unique platforms after its screening and missing-data steps Sen, Kumar, Dubey & Gupta. (2023) ·
SKDG23-C5 - B The study measures seller performance from the buyer's perspective as delivered to buyers, not as platform financial performance Sen, Kumar, Dubey & Gupta. (2023) ·
SKDG23-C6 - B The paper presents two process-structure packages: self-participation with fairness, and platform investments with monitoring Sen, Kumar, Dubey & Gupta. (2023) ·
SKDG23-C7 - B The survey design and buyer-perceived outcome bound the findings and do not establish a universal causal effect for every marketplace Sen, Kumar, Dubey & Gupta. (2023) ·
SKDG23-C8 - B A marketplace governance review should record the platform as rule-maker, participant, and data holder wherever those roles overlap Author framework grounded in Rösch (2024) and Sen et al. (2023) ·
MRC27-C1 - B Monitoring, procedural fairness, platform investment, and self-participation are distinct governance fields Author framework grounded in Sen et al. (2023) ·
MRC27-C2 - B A control package is a testable governance choice, not a universal recommendation Author framework grounded in Sen et al. (2023) and Homburg et al. (2020) ·
MRC27-C3 - B Seller performance, buyer experience, platform economics, and participant access are separate outcomes Author framework grounded in Sen et al. (2023), Rösch (2024), and Homburg et al. (2020) ·
MRC27-C4 - B A platform's dual role requires disclosure of incentive conflicts and the evidence boundary behind any performance claim Author framework grounded in Rösch (2024) ·
MRC27-C5
Grades: A, verified against the printed page of the primary source · B, primary source, text layer only · C, authoritative secondary · D, reported.
Related exhibits
-
The synthetic partner-route comparison
From the essay What is partner-led growth? A channel needs a counterfactual
-
The conflict-performance reading
From the essay Channel conflict is not one number
-
The synthetic product-led growth worksheet
From the essay What is product-led growth? Product usage is not a growth loop