A note on rating averages we refuse to publish
Why we do not lead with a single satisfaction number on this site, and what we use instead.
Most editorial-led consultancies eventually put a single average satisfaction number on the homepage. We have decided not to do that.
The number is too easy to optimise for and too easy to misread. A 4.6 out of five mean over twenty surveys can come from very different distributions: twenty calm fours, or fifteen fives and five threes. The two tell different stories about an advisory practice and we did not want to flatten them into a one-decimal headline.
What we publish instead is per-briefing reviews, with at least one mild-reservation note in the set, and an internal record we share on request during retainer kickoffs. It is more work and the homepage is less glossy. We are at peace with that.
This is also why our testimonials section varies in length and sometimes contains a measured criticism. We did not want a wall of identical praise to do the lying for us.
Other recent blog notes
A short note on what "refactoring" should mean in 2025
A working definition we keep coming back to during advisory kickoffs, and the three distortions of the term we politely refuse to accept.
2026-03-11Why we publish the limitations section first in every briefing
A small editorial discipline that has shaped the way our advisory clients respond to long briefings.
2026-02-08Five questions we ask before recommending a platform investment
A short, repeatable diagnostic we use during retainer kickoffs to keep platform conversations honest.