Step 1
Support without a recorded contradiction produces Supported.
Public tool method · Version 1.0.0
Narrative Integrity
Use this method when you need to answer: Will a consequential company claim survive audience-specific scrutiny? It turns the evidence you supply into a Audience claim and evidence matrix by applying explicit, versioned decision rules. The result is not a benchmark or certification. It shows the strongest evidence, riskiest input, next action, owner, and review date so another reader can inspect and challenge the decision.
Last material review 2026-08-08 · Next review 2026-11-06
Question answered
Will a consequential company claim survive audience-specific scrutiny?
Narrative Integrity compares each claim with support, disconfirming facts, verification, risk, and ownership across board, investor, and acquirer modes.
Step 2
Support plus a disconfirming fact or diligence gap produces Contested.
Step 3
A claim without support produces Unsupported.
Step 4
Audience mode changes the required evidence, not the provenance contract.
Step 5
Record the required inputs and label missing or estimated evidence before classification.
Assumptions and limits
- The method is not board, investment, valuation, transaction, accounting, disclosure, tax, or legal advice.
Usefulness hypothesis
A contradiction list improves high-stakes narrative preparation.
Primary metric: Claim-matrix export or workshop handoff
Worked example and modes
The same method, preserved entry intent.
- Claim
- Enterprise expansion is repeatable
- Market Reality
- Three wins share the same trigger and buyer
- Supporting Evidence
- Pipeline contains 12 matching accounts
- Disconfirming Evidence
- Implementation time rose 20%
- Risk
- Capacity may constrain conversion
- Disclosure
- partial
Distribution package
Use, embed, and share the instrument.
Blank CSV template90-second demonstrationThree share treatmentsPlain-language answer
Embed with canonical attribution
<iframe src="https://petrichorgrowth.com/tools/board-narrative/embed.html" title="Narrative Integrity" loading="lazy" width="100%" height="900"></iframe>
<p>Source: <a href="https://petrichorgrowth.com/tools/board-narrative">Narrative Integrity by Petrichor</a></p>Ownership and change control
Who keeps the result defensible?
Product
Petrichor product
Method
Petrichor strategy
Evidence
Petrichor research
Privacy
Petrichor operations
Security
Petrichor web platform
Distribution
Petrichor growth
Support
Petrichor client experience
A material method change requires a reason, impact note, fixture rerun, semantic-version increment, and public entry in the method change log.
Related decision methods
Continue through the evidence chain.
Positioning Sharpness
Test whether positioning remains distinctive and defensible under substitution or pressure.
Pricing Authority
Quantify discount leakage and define defensible pricing guardrails.
Reality Audit
Identify which strategic assumptions require evidence, testing, or retirement.
Related plain-language answers
Positioning Sharpness answerPricing Authority answerReality Audit answer
Method questions
What another reader should know.
What does the Narrative Integrity method produce?
A versioned Audience claim and evidence matrix with visible reasoning, evidence status, next action, ownership, and review date.
What inputs does Narrative Integrity require?
Only the structured decision evidence named by the instrument. Missing or estimated inputs remain visible in the result.
Does the method use AI or a cross-customer benchmark?
No. It applies deterministic rules to the user's inputs and does not compare one customer with another.
When is the method reviewed or changed?
The current method is reviewed at least every 90 days. Material changes require new fixtures, a version increment, and a public change note.
When should the artifact move into facilitated work?
When the unresolved decision requires team challenge, evidence reconciliation, dissent, ownership, and an organizational commitment.