# Message test — https://codibly.com/ After reading your page, only 0 of 15 personas could name what kind of product this is, unprompted. - **Page tested:** https://codibly.com/ - **Audience tested against:** B2B e-mobility and renewable energy companies from Europe and the US - **Personas:** 15 simulated - **Report:** https://grader.wynter.com/r/codibly-software-it-services-for-renewable-ene-mF_JTBg > These answers are generated by AI, scored on Wynter's B2B Message > Layers framework using behaviorally-diverse simulated personas. The > methodology is real and the critique is directional. What a simulated > persona cannot have is a live budget, a renewal coming up, or a boss > asking about this quarter. --- ## 01 · The scores Every persona answered all four questions. These are four independent proportions of the same panel, not stages of a funnel. | Layer | Question | Cleared the bar | Strength | Of those who passed | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1. Clarity | Do they understand what you do? | 0/15 | 77% | 2 without hesitation, 12 with reservations | | 2. Relevance | Can they tell what it solves, and who it's for? | 2/13 | 31% | all with reservations | | 3. Value | Do they actually want it? | 8/15 | 49% | all with reservations | | 4. Differentiation | Is there a reason to pick you over the alternatives? | 3/15 | 32% | all with reservations | **Brand alignment** (a side metric, not one of the four layers) — 2/15, 30% strength (all with reservations). Does the page read like the company you actually are? **Fix first: Clarity.** Earliest failing layer, walking the sequence in order — not simply the lowest score. ### What they thought you sell 1 of the personas who named a category got it wrong: - 1× “IT/software consultancy for e-mobility & energy” --- ## 02 · What to change, layer by layer Ordered worst-first. Specific edits, not a restatement of the score. ### Clarity **Replace the stacked service category labels with one statement of what is sold.** The list of capability labels reads like an agency directory rather than a defined offering. Lead with a single line saying whether you deliver projects, embed specialists, or both. *effort medium · impact high · tested against Concrete over abstract* **Replace the opening transformation line with a sentence naming the service sold.** Readers cannot tell from the top of the page what is actually being sold, and fall back on guessing from the expertise grid. Write one opening sentence: engineering teams for EV charging and renewable energy projects. *effort low · impact high · tested against Lead with the use case* **Add a named-audience line under the headline stating which roles and companies this serves.** Nothing on the page tells a visitor whether it is meant for a CPO, a utility, or an OEM. Name the buyer directly, for example heads of engineering at charge point operators and renewables developers. *effort low · impact high · tested against Name the audience* ### Relevance **Add a problem statement above the expertise grid describing the hiring gap.** The page presents capabilities before naming any situation the reader recognises. Open with the problem: EV charging projects stall because protocol engineers cannot be hired fast enough. *effort low · impact high · tested against Problem before solution* **Move a concrete project example above the fold, before the capability lists.** A reader scrolls through claims before seeing any evidence of real work. Lead with one named project, its scope, and its result. *effort medium · impact medium · tested against Show the product early* **Add a one-line caption above the client logos naming the sectors served.** Logos currently do the qualifying work the copy should do, and readers who do not recognise them learn nothing. Caption them with the sectors and project types those clients represent. *effort low · impact medium · tested against Proof next to the claim* ### Differentiation **Add a short section naming the specialist protocol capability clients cannot hire in-house.** The page shows breadth but never says why to choose it over any other engineering consultancy. Write that OCPP, OCPI and BESS engineers take months to recruit and you supply them immediately. *effort medium · impact high · tested against Give a reason to choose you* **Cut generic capability headings and replace with headings naming the specific protocol or system.** Headings read as categories any software firm could claim. Make each heading name the concrete thing, such as OCPP 2.0.1 backend integration or battery storage control software. *effort medium · impact medium · tested against Concrete over abstract* **Add a line under the Spyrosoft mention stating what the backing gives clients.** The acquisition is mentioned as a fact and left to speak for itself, and one reader took it as a delivery risk. Say what it buys the client: bench depth, continuity of team, and financial stability. *effort low · impact medium · tested against Tie the feature to the outcome* ### Value **Add a result line with numbers under each case study title.** Case study titles name clients but no outcome, so credibility rests on brand recognition alone. Under each, add what was delivered, in what timeframe, and the measured result. *effort medium · impact high · tested against Proof next to the claim* **Add engagement scope and pricing model text beside the logo wall.** Buyers cannot judge fit without knowing team size, engagement length, or how you charge. State typical team composition, minimum engagement, and whether work is time-and-materials or fixed price. *effort medium · impact high · tested against Answer the live objection* ### Brand alignment (side metric) **Add business outcome language on cost, timeline and headcount alongside protocol terms.** Operations and sustainability buyers find only engineering vocabulary and no reason to keep reading. Add outcomes they answer for: charger uptime, rollout schedule, and hiring avoided. *effort medium · impact high · tested against Plain language* **Define OCPP, OCPI and BESS in plain words the first time each appears.** Non-engineering decision-makers hit undefined acronyms and stop. Add a short gloss after each, for example OCPP, the protocol connecting chargers to your management platform. *effort low · impact medium · tested against Plain language* --- ## 03 · What is working ### Client logos do most of the qualifying work the copy fails to do Four respondents said recognized logos made the buyer and technical credibility clear within seconds, outperforming the copy itself. > the one thing that would move the needle is the client list — Siemens Energy, SolarEdge, Wallbox, Nordex — because named enterprise logos in exactly this sector is real proof of relevant delivery experience > > — Sustainability Manager, electric vehicles, 1001-5000 > The "Our Expertise in e-Mobility" and "Our Expertise in Renewable Energy" section headers with items like "CSMS/CPMS Development," "OCPP Implementation Services," "EV Fleet Management Software Services," and "Battery Management Systems (BMS)" told me within seconds this is a custom software dev shop > > — Sustainability Manager, electric vehicles, 1001-5000 > The client logos (Wallbox, SolarEdge, Siemens Energy, etc.) and the long list of named protocols support that this is real technical work, not vague consulting fluff. > > — Business Development Manager, e-mobility, 51-200 > the client logos (SolarEdge, Siemens Energy, Wallbox) told me who they're for more than the copy did > > — VP of Business Development, renewable energy, 201-500 ### The niche protocol staffing gap is a value proposition respondents could name Two respondents identified the offer as filling a specialist OCPP/OCPI/BESS capability gap without in-house hiring, and read the EV charging and renewables consultancy focus correctly. > Software dev consultancy for e-mobility and renewable energy — EV charging, BESS, OCPP stuff. Not a product, a services shop. > > — VP of Business Development, renewable energy, 201-500 > I'd get a technical partner who could pick up OCPP/OCPI protocol work, CSMS integration, or a dedicated team for V2X/smart charging without me having to hire > > — Business Development Manager, e-mobility, 51-200 ### Spyrosoft Group backing reads as a concrete, verifiable differentiator Three respondents cited the acquisition as proof of vendor stability, longevity, and established mid-sized firm positioning. One respondent instead read it as a risk to service delivery consistency. > The "over a decade" of experience claim, the Spyrosoft acquisition in 2024 (a publicly traded group with 1700+ experts and 20+ offices) > > — Business Development Manager, e-mobility, 51-200 > a named parent company, "publicly traded on the Warsaw Stock Exchange," 1700+ experts, 20+ offices — that's a verifiable stability signal > > — VP of Business Development, renewable energy, 201-500 > The Spyrosoft Group backing is the one specific thing that actually moves the needle for me — "publicly traded technology leader on the Warsaw Stock Exchange," "1700+ experts, 20+ offices in 9 countries," and named in the FT's fastest-growing companies list three years running. That's a concrete, checkable claim > > — Operations Manager, clean energy, 501-1000 > raises "will I actually get senior e-mobility engineers or get routed into a generic Spyrosoft delivery pool" — so I'd need that answered before it beats a smaller, more specialized shop > > — Business Development Manager, e-mobility, 51-200 --- ## 04 · What the personas said ### The target buyer and the problem are never stated, only inferred Seven respondents said the page never names who it is for or what problem it solves; they had to infer it from the expertise grid and logos, in some cases two-thirds down the page. Opening copy was called generic transformation language. > Nobody ever states "this is for Operations Managers at clean energy companies" — I inferred the reader from the client logos (Siemens Energy, SolarEdge, Nordex) and the service list, not from any direct statement > > — Operations Manager, clean energy, 501-1000 > the page never says who buys this in plain English — it lists deliverables like "OCPP Implementation Services" and "EMS & BESS Integration" without ever naming a job title or a problem statement > > — Sustainability Manager, electric vehicles, 1001-5000 > I had to piece it together from the "Our Expertise" list (CSMS/CPMS Development, OCPP Implementation, EV Fleet Management, V2G, Smart Charging & Load Management, BESS integrations) and the client logos > > — Business Development Manager, e-mobility, 51-200 > the actual problem and buyer only get concrete once you hit the expertise grid: CSMS/CPMS, OCPP, EV fleet management, BESS integration, demand response > > — VP of Business Development, renewable energy, 201-500 > The phrase "digital transformation" itself is the culprit — it's a catch-all consultancy word that could describe literally any service engagement > > — Business Development Manager, e-mobility, 51-200 > had to scroll past cookie banner and logos to "Who We Are" to get e-mobility/energy consultancy angle > > — VP of Business Development, renewable energy, 201-500 ### Case studies and logos are asserted but never substantiated with outcomes Roughly ten respondents said the logo wall and case study titles carry no named results, metrics, timelines, scope, headcount, or pricing. Several called this a direct hit to credibility. > no named client outcome, no scope, no pricing. Not worth a meeting yet. > > — VP of Business Development, renewable energy, 201-500 > there's zero pricing, case study depth, or team sizing info on the page itself > > — Business Development Manager, e-mobility, 51-200 > no "we built X for Siemens Energy," no case study link that actually names the client, just a logo wall and a case-study teaser ("Developing a Scalable OCPP Server for Seamless EV Charging & V2G Integration") with no company attached > > — Operations Manager, clean energy, 501-1000 > it's a services engagement, so worth a meeting only if procurement can get me two direct references from those logos confirming scope and timeline, not just a logo wall > > — Operations Manager, clean energy, 501-1000 > no case study numbers, no timeline, no "we cut integration time from X to Y for client Z," just a client logo wall and a list of service names > > — Business Development Manager, e-mobility, 51-200 > the page gives me zero proof of delivery quality: no case study detail, no client outcome numbers, just a logo wall and a list of service names > > — VP of Business Development, renewable energy, 201-500 > the case studies section just says "Read more" with no numbers attached, so I can't tell if this changes timelines by weeks or months > > — Operations Manager, clean energy, 501-1000 > Client logos - Siemens Energy, SolarEdge, Nordex - are the only real signal here. Rest is generic service list, no case metrics. > > — Sustainability Manager, electric vehicles, 1001-5000 ### The page speaks to engineers, not to operations or business decision-makers Four respondents said protocol terminology crowds out business outcome narrative, with no cost, headcount, or reporting language for ops and sustainability buyers. > it uses category terms I recognize (OCPP, CSMS/CPMS, V2G, IEEE 2030.5, demand response) without over-explaining them > > — Business Development Manager, e-mobility, 51-200 > The tone is written for a technical buyer or a founder evaluating "who can build this," heavy on capability lists and "years of experience and expertise" boilerplate; it never once addresses what happens to my team's workload or timeline if I hire them > > — Operations Manager, clean energy, 501-1000 > it's heavy on protocol names and service categories (CSMS/CPMS, V2X, dynamic load management) and light on the plain-English "here's what changes for your team" story I actually need > > — Operations Manager, clean energy, 501-1000 > There's no promise here to test against my current workflow because there's no product or measurable outcome pitched at a sustainability manager; it's "OCPP Implementation," "BMS," "Fleet Management Software" — all engineering deliverables for a CTO or product lead > > — Sustainability Manager, electric vehicles, 1001-5000 > The tone is not written for someone like me — it's written for an engineer or technical evaluator who already knows what OCPP and OCPI/OICP mean > > — Operations Manager, clean energy, 501-1000 ### Service category labels stack up without one clear offering statement Four respondents read the page as a services or agency listing rather than a defined offering, with breadth shown but no single statement of what is sold. > there's zero pricing, case study depth, or team sizing info on the page itself > > — Business Development Manager, e-mobility, 51-200 > this reads like an agency site, not "comparable tooling" I'd evaluate as a category > > — VP of Business Development, renewable energy, 201-500 > It's the sheer density of service-category labels stacked one after another — CSMS/CPMS, OCPI & OICP Interoperability, V2X, Dynamic Load Management, EMS & BESS Integration — with an arrow carousel and no plain sentence tying them into a single offering > > — Operations Manager, clean energy, 501-1000 > Not a product, a services vendor. > > — Sustainability Manager, electric vehicles, 1001-5000 --- ## 05 · The hardest read An adversarial pass over the findings. Every claim below was checked against the panel's own answers; unsupported ones were dropped. - **The copy is doing none of the qualifying work — the logo wall is carrying the page** *(high)* Six respondents inferred the buyer and problem only from the expertise grid and logos, and four said recognized logos established credibility within seconds, outperforming the copy. Remove the logos and the page communicates nothing. - **The one asset carrying the page is also the least substantiated element on it** *(high)* Eight respondents said the logo wall and case study titles carry no metrics, timelines, scope, or pricing, while four relied on those same logos to identify the buyer. Credibility rests on name-dropping that respondents explicitly called a hit to credibility. - **Only two respondents in fifteen could articulate the value proposition, so the offer effectively did not register** *(high)* Two respondents named the OCPP/OCPI/BESS staffing gap correctly, against four who read the page as an undifferentiated services listing and six who could not find a stated problem. The correct read is the exception. - **The page disqualifies the economic buyer by writing exclusively for the technical evaluator** *(high)* Five respondents said protocol terminology crowds out business outcome narrative, with no cost, headcount, or reporting language, and eight noted the absence of metrics and pricing. Nothing on the page supports a budget decision. - **Breadth is being shown at the direct expense of a purchasable offer** *(medium)* Four respondents read stacked service labels as an agency listing with no single statement of what is sold, and six found no named problem. Listing capabilities is substituting for defining the product. - **The strongest differentiator is inherited from a parent company, not earned by the work** *(medium)* Four respondents cited Spyrosoft Group backing as the concrete proof point — and one read it as a delivery-consistency risk — while eight found no substantiated outcomes anywhere. Ownership is standing in for evidence of capability. --- ## 06 · Who answered | # | Role | Industry | Company size | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1 | Business Development Manager | e-mobility | 51-200 | | 2 | VP of Business Development | renewable energy | 201-500 | | 3 | Operations Manager | clean energy | 501-1000 | | 4 | Sustainability Manager | electric vehicles | 1001-5000 | | 5 | Business Development Manager | e-mobility | 51-200 | | 6 | VP of Business Development | renewable energy | 201-500 | | 7 | Operations Manager | clean energy | 501-1000 | | 8 | Sustainability Manager | electric vehicles | 1001-5000 | | 9 | Business Development Manager | e-mobility | 51-200 | | 10 | VP of Business Development | renewable energy | 201-500 | | 11 | Operations Manager | clean energy | 501-1000 | | 12 | Sustainability Manager | electric vehicles | 1001-5000 | | 13 | Business Development Manager | e-mobility | 51-200 | | 14 | VP of Business Development | renewable energy | 201-500 | | 15 | Operations Manager | clean energy | 501-1000 | --- ## 07 · Before you act on this The methodology is real, and the critique is directional. What a simulated persona cannot have is a live budget, a renewal coming up, or a boss asking about this quarter. **Validate anything you're betting on with real ICPs who are actually in-market.** Being wrong is more expensive than you think. Finding out is cheaper than you'd guess. Wynter runs message testing with verified B2B professionals — trusted by HubSpot, RingCentral, Shopify, Cognism, Paddle, Veeam, Rippling and Miro. This report is kept for 60 days from 2026-09-29, then deleted along with the personas and their answers.