The outcome boundary
The stronger the sentence, the more specific the observation and comparison it requires.
| Sentence a case wants to make | Minimum evidence needed | What B07 currently has |
|---|---|---|
| Customers were heard | A defined feedback source and an observation of what was collected | A disclosed Voice of Customer capability |
| Customers used the product | Customer-level activation or usage data with a time window | A company-reported November launch |
| Customers changed behaviour | A before and after behaviour measure or a valid comparison group | No Kraftful-specific behaviour measure |
| Retention improved | A defined cohort, retention definition, and comparison path | No acquisition-specific retention path |
| The acquisition caused the result | A counterfactual or credible identification strategy | No causal identification in the public record |
Swipe or scroll horizontally if the table is wider than your screen.
Reference & Evidence
Source: Author's operating test derived from the B07 case record. It separates first-party disclosure from customer observation and causal attribution.
Each line is a claim from the register this journal publishes against, resolved from the register at build time.
- B Amplitude's 2025 filing records AI Feedback as launched in November 2025 Amplitude 2025 Form 10-K, product launches section ·
AK25-C3 - B The same filing says AI Feedback was developed following the July Kraftful acquisition Amplitude 2025 Form 10-K, product launches section ·
AK25-C4
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 public evidence ladder
From the essay A voice-of-customer acquisition is not customer knowledge
-
The synthetic partner-route comparison
From the essay What is partner-led growth? A channel needs a counterfactual
-
The revenue-management control record
From the essay Revenue management versus dynamic pricing