Proof before the pilot.
Move beyond slide decks to what software can actually do. Lock your requirements upfront, verify them against live systems, and give your buying committee an evidence-backed record both sides can stand behind.
Selling software instead? See the vendor experience
Chargeback automation · DisputeFlow
Requirement
Route at least 95% of high-risk disputes to an analyst correctly.
Result
What happens next
The vendor proposes routing improvements and a latency retest. The buyer reviews those conditions before deciding whether to proceed.
Both deal-breakers met. Latency and routing remain conditions. This card highlights one of the assessment’s two gaps.
Where it fits
The deal, with and without evidence.
Shortlist
Evaluation
Decision
Pilot and rollout
Contract
| Stage | Without Trydence | With Trydence |
|---|---|---|
| Shortlist | Demos and decks set expectations. Claims are hard to compare across vendors. | Requirements are written once and shared, so every candidate is measured against the same bar. |
| Evaluation | Reference calls and trials take weeks and still leave the committee guessing. | Locked criteria, measured runs and a fingerprinted record both sides can inspect. |
| Decision | The champion argues from opinion. Gaps surface after signature. | The committee sees what meets the requirements, what falls short and what remains untested. |
| Pilot and rollout | The pilot becomes the first real test, on your data and your team's time. | The pilot validates the recorded findings in your environment, with known gaps priced or planned around. |
| Contract | Acceptance criteria and service levels rest on sales promises, with little measured evidence behind them. | Observed results inform negotiated acceptance criteria and minimum service levels. The parties agree the terms; the report creates no automatic guarantee. |
How it works
A shared test, with clear roles.
Define and lock
The buyer sets measurable targets and deal-breakers, then locks the requirements before testing.
Connect and test
The vendor connects a test system, rehearses privately, and submits a run for buyer approval.
Review and decide
Both sides review the approved run's findings. The buyer decides what they justify and what still needs validation.
For buyers
Make a choice you can explain.
Bring the buying committee a clear account of what meets your requirements, what falls short, and what remains untested.
- Focus the discussion on your priorities.
- Keep deal-breakers and assessment limits visible.
- Decide where more validation is worth the effort.
For vendors
Let your system challenge the shortlist.
Give your buyer’s champion evidence, not another deck. Compete against the buyer’s locked requirements and make demonstrated strengths easier to defend in committee.
- Rehearse privately before submitting a counted run.
- Declare your scope and limits before testing.
- Conditional Fit keeps a path forward: propose validation and pilot terms for non-deal-breaker gaps.
The buying committee
What each of you gets.
The buyer brings the recorded findings to their committee. Each reviewer gets the part of the evidence they need to give a confident yes or no.
Executive / CFO
Is this worth a pilot?
Whether the evidence supports investing in a pilot, the major risks, and what the performance gaps would mean for the business.
ExampleThe cost of missed or wrongly fought disputes.
InfoSec / Data Governance
What touched our data?
Which test data was used, how it was handled, and which privacy or security checks the buyer included in the criteria.
ExampleAll 24 cases are synthetic, and card-number redaction is measured directly.
Compliance / Legal
Can we rely on it?
The locked requirements, the recorded findings, the funding disclosure, and the stated limits of the assessment. Vendor funding is disclosed. The buyer owns the criteria; payment cannot influence the verdict.
Operations
Will it work for our team?
Performance, accuracy and exceptions observed in the selected tests, and what they suggest about the workload you would inherit.
Examplep50/p95/p99 latency and escalation accuracy.
An assessment you can inspect
Targets, observed values and gaps in one report, with coverage and limitations stated.
Reports and measured runs
Evidence your committee can use
Briefings for finance, security and legal reviewers, alongside PDF, spreadsheet and machine-readable exports. Every export identifies the kind of evidence it contains.
Briefings and exports
A documented next step
A vendor proposes a fix and validation step, and the buyer reviews it. Proposals never change findings or create an agreement.
Way Forward
The sample covers payment disputes. Other software categories need their own test cases and integration.
Independence
Funding never buys a finding.
The vendor funds the evaluation. The buyer writes and locks the criteria, and no one can edit the recorded results. Funding is disclosed; payment cannot influence the verdict.
Buyer requirements
Criteria · locked
Criteria are written by the buyer and locked before testing. A fingerprint shows they were not changed afterwards.
Recorded findings
Findings · read-only
Results are stored as measured. Neither side can edit them, and proposals never change the original finding.
Disclosed methods
Method · disclosed
Test cases, scoring and the limits of each assessment are stated, so reviewers can judge what the evidence covers.