Do not let plausible strategy mutate into unsupported sales claims.

Likely safe if verified

• Homeowners usually compare multiple contractor bids before choosing.
• A meaningful share of homeowners expect same-day or on-the-spot quotes.
• Digital quotes are preferred by many homeowners.
• Speed-to-lead is a well-supported general lead-conversion factor, though not fence-specific.
• Major FSM competitors already bundle quoting, CRM, follow-up, scheduling, booking, and AI/call answering.
• Pure estimating/invoicing apps have low monthly price anchors; managed implementation/service can support higher pricing.
• Fencing is a large enough U.S. market to justify a focused beachhead, but public market-size figures vary by definition.

Unsafe until further validation

• “Fence contractors lose X% of leads because they quote too slowly.”
• “FenceQuote will increase close rate by Y%.”
• “Most fence contractors lack CRM/software.”
• “The average fence contractor will pay $N/month.”
• “Fully automated quote follow-up can run without human approval.”
• “The market is $20.5B” unless carefully labeled as IBISWorld’s Fence Construction market-size estimate, not FenceQuote’s obtainable market.

Preferred source types:

• Primary/company materials for competitors and pricing.
• Industry reports from credible orgs where accessible.
• Public filings or investor materials for field-service/lead-gen companies when relevant.
• Contractor forums/reviews/interviews as qualitative signal, not quantitative proof.
• Government/BLS/Census/NAICS data for contractor counts, wages, establishment sizes, etc.
• Academic/industry research on speed-to-lead, sales follow-up, and home-services buying behavior.
• Public review sites and case studies only with careful caveats.

Weak source types:

• SEO blogs with unsourced statistics.
• Vendor claims without methodology.
• AI-generated summaries.
• X/Twitter posts, unless used only as discovery leads or practitioner anecdotes.

A separate verification pass should check the draft evidence pack and claim ledger for:

• Link validity
• URL resolves or archived/source alternative is provided.
• Access date recorded.

• Source relevance
• Source actually discusses the cited claim.
• Source context is not distorted.

• Number accuracy
• Number in draft matches source exactly.
• Units, geography, year, sample, and methodology are preserved.

• Claim strength
• Source supports the claim directly, indirectly, weakly, or not at all.
• Weak/vendor/promotional claims are labeled.

• Recommendation integrity
• Strategic recommendations do not overreach beyond evidence.
• Hypotheses are not presented as facts.

Verifier output schema:

```markdown

Before anything is shown to Clay as research-backed:

• Build a claim ledger with IDs.
• For every numeric claim, record:
• exact wording in draft;
• source URL;
• exact excerpt copied from source;
• accessed date;
• source type;
• support level: direct / indirect / weak / unsupported;
• caveat.
• Run a separate verifier pass over the ledger.
• Verifier checks:
• links resolve;
• quoted excerpt exists on source page/PDF;
• draft wording does not overstate the source;
• units/geography/year/sample are preserved;
• vendor claims are labeled as vendor claims.
• Any unsupported claims are removed, reworded as hypotheses, or moved to “needs validation.”