# Feature Matrices That Don't Lie

The feature comparison table is the most-gamed artifact in competitive work: pick the rows you win, mark everything ✅, ship it to sales, lose credibility the first time a prospect knows better. These are the honesty rules.

## Row selection is the analysis

- Rows come from **what decides deals** (win/loss notes, sales-call objections), not from your feature list. A matrix of rows you chose because you win them is a mirror, not a map.
- Include the rows you LOSE. A matrix without red cells on your side will be discarded by the first skeptical reader — and sales already knows the truth.
- Cap at 12-15 rows. Fifty-row matrices communicate nothing except effort.

## Cell honesty

- Three states minimum: ✅ has / 🟡 partial-or-plan-gated / ❌ lacks — and 🟡 is where the truth lives. "Has SSO" (enterprise plan only, SAML not OIDC) is a 🟡 with a footnote, not a ✅.
- **Parity ≠ quality.** Both products "have reporting"; one is a pivot-table, one is three canned charts. Where the difference is the point, replace the emoji with a phrase: "custom + scheduled" vs "3 fixed views".
- Every non-obvious cell carries provenance: [docs, date] / [trial, date] / [reported — G2]. Undated cells rot; competitors ship monthly.

## Weighting by deal impact

Not all rows matter equally. Add a weight column from win/loss evidence: `deal-breaker / evaluated / checkbox`. A ❌ on a checkbox row is trivia; a 🟡 on a deal-breaker row is your roadmap talking.

## The two-audience rule

The internal matrix (honest, red cells, provenance) and the sales-facing battlecard (framing, objection handling) are different artifacts derived from the same data. Shipping the internal one to prospects is naive; letting the sales version become your internal truth is how roadmaps chase ghosts.
