Deployed Works Guide
Platform & trustWhat Proof Gaps Mean
A proof gap is a missing or unclear piece of evidence, not a judgement that a provider is unsuitable.
What Proof Gaps Mean guide trailer
A short walkthrough for this guide will appear here.
Audience
Platform & trust
Buyers, providers and operators using Deployed Works
Time
2 minute read
Outcome
A proof gap is a missing or unclear piece of evidence, not a judgement that a provider is unsuitable.
Share this guide
PDF guide
Share this guide with your team.
Download the PDF for meetings or offline use. The web guide has the latest version.
Related guides
Before / after transformation
Turn a provider-shaped request into an outcome brief.
Use this sequence when a need starts as a provider label but the real requirement is a business result.
Start
Outcome
What needs to be different for the business, customer, team or workflow?
Diagnose
Current blocker
What is manual, blocked, risky, slow, expensive or unclear today?
Shape
Useful context
Success signals, non-negotiable constraints, evidence, timeline and budget signal.
Routes
Deployment routes
Derive viable approaches before asking the buyer to choose a person, tool, vendor or service.
Guide summary
What this guide helps you do
Who it is for
Best fit readers
- Buyers reviewing capability profiles.
The problem
Shared platform language needs clear boundaries.
Proof gaps are common because some work is confidential, new, hard to measure or poorly documented. The problem is not the existence of every gap; it is failing to notice, explain or close important gaps before deployment.
Step by step
Use the platform reference clearly.
What a proof gap is
A proof gap is a place where evidence is missing, weak, unclear, confidential or not obviously connected to the capability being offered.
Why gaps are normal
Many providers have relevant work they cannot name publicly, early offers without perfect case studies or outcomes that were not measured at the time.
Common proof gaps
Common gaps include no before-and-after detail, no buyer context, no measurable result, no example of similar scope, unclear role in the work or proof that is too broad for the brief.
Buyer use
Buyers should turn proof gaps into questions: what can you share, what was similar, what was different, what did you personally do and what risk remains?
Provider use
Providers should explain gaps honestly and offer alternative proof where possible: anonymised case notes, references, screenshots, walkthroughs, metrics or a paid diagnostic.
What proof gaps do not mean
A proof gap does not automatically mean a provider lacks skill, is unsuitable or should be rejected.
Example
Use this on Deployed Works
A provider claims they improve onboarding workflows but has no public case study. They close part of the proof gap by sharing an anonymised before-and-after workflow, the tools involved, the outcome and what they cannot disclose.
Template
Proof gap review note
Provider: Capability: Proof available: Proof gap: Why the gap exists: Risk created by the gap: Question to ask: Alternative proof requested: Diagnostic needed?
Common mistakes
Avoid these traps
- Pretending proof gaps do not exist.
- Treating every proof gap as a rejection.
- Filling gaps with vague confidence language.
Checklist
Ready to publish when
- The proof gap is named plainly.
- The reason for the gap is explained where possible.
- Alternative proof is requested or offered.
- Buyer risk is visible.
FAQ
Questions this guide usually raises
Are proof gaps bad?
They are not automatically bad. They are signals that evidence needs review.
Can providers have proof without public case studies?
Yes. Providers can use anonymised examples, permissioned references, metrics, screenshots, process notes or walkthroughs where appropriate.
Take it with you
Share this guide with your team.
Download the PDF for meetings or offline use. The web guide has the latest version.
Share this guide
Use the canonical page link. No social scripts or tracking widgets are loaded.
Use the guide
Use the platform reference in practice.
A proof gap is a missing or unclear piece of evidence, not a judgement that a provider is unsuitable.
