{"id":"H-2","type":"hypothesis","title":"More faithful commercial representations improve selection outcomes","created":"2026-07-13","status":"open","authors":["Upstream Zero"],"edges":[{"rel":"derives-from","to":"Q-1"}],"predictions":["Vendors whose representations survive independent fidelity checks will show better post-selection outcomes (fit, retention) than matched vendors whose representations do not","Evaluators given higher-fidelity representations will produce recommendations that buyers rate as better fits, measured after purchase"],"refutationConditions":["Measured selection outcomes that do not improve with representation fidelity","Evidence that persuasion volume, not verifiable substance, dominates selection outcomes even in evaluator-mediated channels"],"body":"The fidelity-pays hypothesis. It is also the company's own honesty\ncondition: the commercial offering rests on the premise that understanding\nand improving representation fidelity is worth paying for *because it\nimproves outcomes*. If this hypothesis fails, the research program loses\nits commercial logic — and by our own rules, that result would be\npublished like any other.","url":"/hypotheses/H-2","machineUrl":"/objects/H-2","referencedBy":[{"from":"Q-1","rel":"investigated-by"}],"_meta":{"site":"Upstream Zero — Commercial Evaluation Observatory","version":"0.1","note":"Claims are presented at their evidence tier; Narrated is the lowest. Verify by walking edges, not by trusting us."}}