{"api":{"name":"api.sb","description":"Business-as-Code surface for Startups.Studio","home":"https://api.sb","docs":"https://api.sb/docs","version":"1.0.0"},"$context":"https://api.sb/$context","$type":"FoundingHypothesis","$id":"https://api.sb/founding-hypotheses/fh%3Aw4-4541-buying-decision%3Av1","links":{"self":"https://api.sb/v1/founding-hypotheses/fh%3Aw4-4541-buying-decision%3Av1","canonical":"https://api.sb/founding-hypotheses/fh%3Aw4-4541-buying-decision%3Av1","pool":"https://api.sb/v1/founding-hypotheses"},"foundingHypothesis":{"id":"fh:w4-4541-buying-decision:v1","lens":"AIService","type":"founding-hypothesis","click":{"rubricScores":{"C8_lensFit":1,"C7_magicLensFit":1,"C4_competitorHonesty":1,"C6_crossSlotCoherence":1,"C1_customerSpecificity":1,"C2_problemFrictionRealism":1,"C9_killCriteriaAttestability":1,"C3_approachEngineCoverability":1,"C5_differentiationLoservilleEscape":1},"upperRightLoserville":true},"cellRef":{"id":"work-contexts.org.ai/w4-4541-buying-decision","stableHash":"wcc:w4:4541:buying-decision:v1"},"problem":{"slotStatement":"Procurement analysts spend 2–4 weeks per vendor selection stitching together RFP responses, demo notes, security questionnaires, and reference calls into a defensible scorecard, and when finance or legal challenges the recommendation nobody can reconstruct which vendor claim mapped to which evidence, so decisions get relitigated and cycles slip."},"approach":{"oneSentence":"An AI service that ingests RFP responses, vendor docs, and demo transcripts, scores each vendor against a buyer-defined rubric, and emits a review-ready selection memo where every scorecard cell links back to the exact primary-source line of evidence."},"customer":{"icpShape":"B2B SaaS and mid-market e-commerce companies ($50M–$500M revenue) running quarterly software/vendor selection cycles, where the buyer is the VP of Procurement or Head of IT Sourcing and the daily user is a Procurement Analyst or Category Manager running RFPs and vendor scorecards","beachheadShape":"EarlyMajorityWorkflow — procurement teams at mid-market B2B SaaS firms who already run structured RFP/vendor-selection cycles but assemble scorecards manually in spreadsheets"},"archetype":"startup-archetypes.org.ai/AIService-MoneyOnDelivery","beachhead":"EarlyMajorityWorkflow — procurement teams at mid-market B2B SaaS firms who already run structured RFP/vendor-selection cycles but assemble scorecards manually in spreadsheets","competitors":{"substitutes":[{"name":"Excel/Google Sheets vendor scorecard templates","category":"status-quo"},{"name":"Gartner / G2 analyst reports and buyer guides","category":"human alternative"},{"name":"Olive / Vendr / Tropic guided-buying platforms","category":"incumbent"},{"name":"ChatGPT Enterprise / Claude for ad-hoc vendor comparison","category":"AI-native horizontal"}]},"studioThesis":"T-AIS-LOW-TECH","killThreshold":{"K":8,"M":30,"N":7,"rubricItemSet":["C1_customerSpecificity","C2_problemFrictionRealism","C3_approachEngineCoverability","C4_competitorHonesty","C5_differentiationLoservilleEscape","C6_crossSlotCoherence","C7_magicLensFit","C8_lensFit","C9_killCriteriaAttestability"],"verdictPolicy":"all-load-bearing-pass-and-overall-ge-X","loadBearingItemSet":["C1_customerSpecificity","C2_problemFrictionRealism","C3_approachEngineCoverability","C4_competitorHonesty","C5_differentiationLoservilleEscape","C6_crossSlotCoherence"],"verdictPolicyVerbatim":"KILL unless every load-bearing rubric item passes per workbook AND overall pass-rate ≥ 7/9 (CASCADE.md §4 Stage 9 commit threshold)."},"lifecycleState":"Active","differentiation":{"twoByTwo":{"xAxis":"Evidence traceability (every score cell linked to a quoted primary-source line in the vendor's own RFP/doc/transcript)","yAxis":"Buyer-owned rubric fit (scoring driven by the buyer's weighted criteria, not a vendor-catalog taxonomy)","winningQuadrant":"High traceability + High buyer-rubric fit: a selection memo finance and legal can audit cell-by-cell, scored against the procurement team's own weighted criteria","loservilleEscape":true,"loservilleQuadrant":"Low traceability + Low buyer-rubric fit: ChatGPT-style ad-hoc vendor comparisons that produce plausible prose with no source links and a generic 'pros/cons' taxonomy the buyer never defined — the documented failure mode of horizontal LLM chat in procurement workflows today"}},"unmetRequirements":[],"pricingArchitecture":"usage-meter"},"actions":{},"options":{},"relationships":{"runtimeUnit":"https://api.sb/v1/runtime-units?startupRef=startup%3Afh%3Aw4-4541-buying-decision%3Av1","brand":"https://api.sb/v1/brands?startupId=startup%3Afh%3Aw4-4541-buying-decision%3Av1","listing":"https://api.services/listings?foundingHypothesisRef=fh%3Aw4-4541-buying-decision%3Av1","cell":"https://api.sb/v1/cells/work-contexts.org.ai/w4-4541-buying-decision","thesis":"https://api.sb/v1/theses/T-AIS-LOW-TECH"},"meta":{"level":"L0","scopes":[]},"user":{"requestId":"a05759e10e5ea594","edgeLocation":"a05759e10e5ea594","geo":{"country":"US"},"ua":{"browser":"Claude"}},"references":{"total":0,"limit":25,"page":1,"links":{"self":"https://api.sb/v1/founding-hypotheses/fh%3Aw4-4541-buying-decision%3Av1/references"},"items":[]}}