Clarity
Do they understand what you do?
Strong13 of 15
13 could name what kind of product this is, unprompted.
Saved report, kept for 60 days — expires in 47 days. Re-opening it is free.
01
Your verdict
Relevance
Can they tell what it solves, and who it's for?
Strong15 of 1515 could quickly tell what problem it solves and who it is for.
Value
Do they actually want it?
Strong14 of 1514 would take a meeting to learn more.
Differentiation
Fix firstIs there a reason to pick you over the alternatives?
Mixed9 of 159 could name a reason to pick you over a similar option.
See what they thought you were
Your page describes: technology decision-intelligence. They said:
- 1×Technology scouting / patent analytics platformwrong
- 1×Technology/patent-intelligence decision platformmatches
13 couldn't name one; 1 named the wrong one; 1 got it right.
Four separate measures, not stages: all 15 personas answered all four questions. Each square is one persona.
Additional signalBrand alignment11 of 15MixedShow finding ▸
Four respondents said the named customers lack relevance to their domain, particularly industrial equipment, and that the logo list suggests pilot chasing across unrelated sectors with no beachhead. Two framed this as an early-stage vendor with an unfocused sales motion, and one said the company is stronger at narrative than at instrumenting proof for skeptics. The proof-by-customer strategy actively reduced… Not one of the four layers, and it does not affect the scores above or the order to fix them in.
These are 15 simulated buyers. Want 15 real ones?
Test with humans02
Fix these firstFix these first
Three edits, in the order that matters.
The first is on your weakest layer, the second on the next, the third on the layer the most buyers had a problem with. Each says what to change on the page and why, with one simulated answer behind it.
Move the 2003 lithium-ion backtest above the logo wall.
Why: The one piece of evidence readers found checkable — the 2003 lithium-ion versus hydrogen forecast — is not in the copy at all until far down, while the top of the page carries only claims like "Defensible technology bets" and "Signals before market consensus". Promote the backtest into the hero area, directly under the radar, with the date the call was made, what TIR said at the time, and what happened. That chart is the differentiator; it should sit where the claim is made, not after it.
Moves DifferentiationProof next to the claimSpell out TRL and the radar quadrant labels in plain words.
Why: The radar leans on undefined shorthand — "TRL · Technology Readiness Level (1–9)", quadrants like "IMMATURE · HIGH TIR · MONITOR CLOSELY" — and stacked jargon around citation networks. Readers followed the fund/monitor/phase-out/ignore framework but could not tell what put a technology in a quadrant. Add a short legend under the radar saying in one line each what makes a route immature versus mature and high versus low TIR, so the picture is readable without decoding acronyms.
4 of 15 raised this
“Patent-analytics tool that scores emerging tech maturity/improvement rate to guide R&D fund/watch/kill calls.”
Senior R&D Leader, Automotive · 1001-5000 employeessimulated Moves ClarityPlain language
Keep these · 3
These landed. Keep the wording when you edit around it.
- Keep · Relevance
The hero line and problem statement name the audience in the first screen, and readers…
“helps CTOs/R&D leaders pick which tech routes to fund or kill”
Senior R&D Leader, Automotive · 1001-5000 employeessimulated - Keep · Differentiation
The 2003 lithium-ion vs hydrogen backtest is the one proof point respondents believed…
“The 2003 lithium-ion vs hydrogen backtest chart is the one specific thing — shows mechanism, not just a claim. Rules-in territory only if that backtest is independently verifiable”
Senior R&D Leader, Automotive · 1001-5000 employeessimulated - Keep · Value
The fund/monitor/phase-out/ignore framework was the value respondents could articulate
“I'd have an actual trigger point ("thresholds you set") to move from watching to funding, which is exactly the gap I have today with patent tools that just…” Show full quote
“I'd have an actual trigger point ("thresholds you set") to move from watching to funding, which is exactly the gap I have today with patent tools that just dump data on me.”
VP of R&D, Manufacturing · 1001-5000 employeessimulated
03
All recommendations
Differentiation
Mixed9 of 15Moves DifferentiationGive a reason to choose you
Replace "Defensible technology bets" with a stated advantage over analyst workflows.
Why: "Defensible technology bets" and "Signals before market consensus" are claims any roadmapping or trend vendor could print unchanged, and readers said the product felt like existing roadmapping software with better data. Say instead what an analyst team cannot do: score every route in a domain, including ones nobody assigned, and refresh the ranking monthly rather than at study delivery. Anchor it to the existing line "Your first decision-grade radar in weeks — not the months a one-off study…
Moves DifferentiationPlain language
Define TIR next to its first appearance on the radar.
Why: The radar axis reads only "TIR · Improvement Rate (%/yr)" and the detail panel shows "107.6%" with no statement of what is being measured or how it is derived. Readers could not judge whether the metric is novel or comparable to anything they already use. Add a one-sentence definition beside the axis label — what inputs the rate is computed from (patent citation networks over time), the unit, and what a high value means for a technology's trajectory. Do the same for "Patents 301": say what…
Clarity
Strong13 of 15Value
Strong14 of 15No specific edits needed here — this layer held up.
Relevance
Strong15 of 15No specific edits needed here — this layer held up.
Brand alignment
Mixed11 of 15Moves Brand alignmentName the audience
Add a non-automotive radar example beside the EV battery one.
Why: Every concrete artefact on the page is automotive EV — the domain selector says "Automotive EV Battery", the routes are cathodes and electrolytes, the sample question is "Which battery chemistry wins for low-cost EVs?". Readers in materials, chemicals and industrial equipment could not see themselves in it and read the breadth of the logo wall as unfocused. Show a second worked example from chemicals or materials, with its own question and route list, so the method reads as domain-portable…
5 of 15 raised this
“none are industrial equipment peers doing competing-route evaluation like I do, so I have no proof this works in my domain versus the patent tools I already pay…” Show full quote
“none are industrial equipment peers doing competing-route evaluation like I do, so I have no proof this works in my domain versus the patent tools I already pay for”
Moves Brand alignmentProof next to the claim
Attach one named outcome to a logo near "Trusted by global innovators".
Why: "BUILT ON 30 YEARS OF MIT RESEARCH / Built on MIT research. Trusted by global innovators." asks the reader to take institutional credibility on faith while the logos sit unexplained beneath it. Put one line of substance next to a named customer — the domain they radar'd and the decision it drove — so the wall carries evidence rather than volume. The Moët Hennessy quote already shows this works; it names a role and a real dilemma.
5 of 15 raised this
“none are industrial equipment peers doing competing-route evaluation like I do, so I have no proof this works in my domain versus the patent tools I already pay…” Show full quote
“none are industrial equipment peers doing competing-route evaluation like I do, so I have no proof this works in my domain versus the patent tools I already pay for”
Moves Brand alignmentProof next to the claim
Group the logo wall by sector instead of one scattered list.
Why: The flat run of TUDelft, Rabobank, US NAVY, NASA, BASF, Canon, LVMH, Reckitt reads as unrelated pilots rather than domain depth, and it made the company look like an early-stage vendor chasing anything. Break it into labelled clusters — chemicals and materials, defence and aerospace, industrial — so a reader in one of those sectors sees a peer group rather than a scatter. Keep fewer names per cluster if that buys coherence.
5 of 15 raised this
“none are industrial equipment peers doing competing-route evaluation like I do, so I have no proof this works in my domain versus the patent tools I already pay…” Show full quote
“none are industrial equipment peers doing competing-route evaluation like I do, so I have no proof this works in my domain versus the patent tools I already pay for”
04
Buyer evidence
Biggest risks
A deliberately adversarial read of the same answers. Each claim was checked back against what the personas said and dropped if nothing supported it.
- high
The page's central metric is unusable as a differentiator because it is never defined, which collapses the argument that TIR beats an analyst's spreadsheet.
Three respondents flagged TIR as appearing repeatedly with no auditable formula, no citation-weighting methodology and undefined adjacent jargon (TRL, citation networks, relevant patents), and said this blocked them from judging novelty. Four more described the product as roadmapping software with better data and asked for proof TIR outperforms current analyst workflows, with two demanding a head-to-head. The undefined metric and the 'nothing new' read are the same failure: the page asks…
- high
Proof rests on a single case, and readers will not buy on it — the one credible asset is also the only asset.
Four respondents named the 2003 lithium-ion vs hydrogen backtest as the only piece of evidence that worked and the page's real differentiator. In the same breath, six respondents said one backtest is insufficient and asked for multiple historical validations, methodology transparency, a live forward bet, or a run on their own chemistry before taking a meeting. One respondent asked for independent verification even of the chart they praised. The page's entire evidentiary weight sits on an asset…
- high
The logo wall damages credibility rather than building it, converting social proof into evidence of an unfocused early-stage vendor.
Five respondents said the named customers lacked relevance to their domain, that the list reads as pilot chasing across unrelated sectors with no beachhead, and two explicitly framed the company as early-stage with an unfocused sales motion. One said the company is stronger at narrative than at instrumenting proof. This element scores worse than having no logos at all.
- high
Nothing on the page moves a reader to a meeting; the stated next step is for the vendor to re-prove the product on the reader's own data.
Four respondents said they would need the radar or methodology demonstrated on their own chemistry or a technology they already know before taking a meeting or considering purchase, and four asked for further historical validations or a live forward bet. Combined with an undefined metric and irrelevant customer logos, the page's conversion path is a custom pilot the page does not offer.
- medium
The page is built for one vertical and silently disqualifies everyone else, wasting the strong first-screen targeting.
Five respondents praised the hero line and problem statement for naming the reader and pain within one or two lines with no guesswork. But every example on the page is automotive EV: two respondents asked for a materials or chemicals case, two asked for a defense proof point, and one said the page ignores defense procurement realities including data sovereignty, classification and long-cycle sourcing. The page earns attention in the first screen and then hands the reader examples that exclude…
- medium
The only value respondents could articulate is a four-box decision framework, and they themselves flagged its inputs as unvalidated — so the articulated value is hollow.
Two respondents named the fund/monitor/phase-out/ignore framework as the useful contribution, and one immediately qualified it by noting the TIR numbers behind it are unvalidated. Three others said TIR has no auditable formula. A decision framework fed by an undefined score is a taxonomy, not a product claim.
Differentiation
The 2003 lithium-ion vs hydrogen backtest is the one proof point respondents believed…
4 of 15 · what worked
“The 2003 lithium-ion vs hydrogen backtest chart is the one specific thing — shows mechanism, not just a claim. Rules-in territory only if that backtest is independently verifiable”
Senior R&D Leader, Automotive · 1001-5000 employeessimulated See all 3 comments
“the patent improvement signal for lithium-ion batteries was already pulling away from internal combustion in the early 2000s" is a concrete, checkable historical claim, not just a promise”
Director of R&D, Manufacturing · 5000+ employeessimulated “The thing that would actually move me toward this one is the 2003 lithium-ion-vs-hydrogen backtest — "the patent improvement signal for lithium-ion batteries was already pulling away from…” Show full quote
“The thing that would actually move me toward this one is the 2003 lithium-ion-vs-hydrogen backtest — "the patent improvement signal for lithium-ion batteries was already pulling away from internal combustion in the early 2000s" is a specific, checkable historical claim”
CTO, Chemical and Materials · 1001-5000 employeessimulated
Clarity
TIR is used throughout but never defined, so respondents could not judge or compare it
3 of 15
“it's used constantly (107.6%, +0.6 vs 2025, YoY +6.8%) as if it's a settled metric, but I never got a formula, just "analyze the citation network to calculate…” Show full quote
“it's used constantly (107.6%, +0.6 vs 2025, YoY +6.8%) as if it's a settled metric, but I never got a formula, just "analyze the citation network to calculate the rate at which the technology is improving on cost and performance" — that's a description of intent, not a definition I could audit or replicate.”
Director of R&D, Manufacturing · 5000+ employeessimulated See all 5 comments
“TIR 'improvement rate %/yr' has no stated formula — is it cost decline, energy density, cycle life, some blended index? And 'citation network' analysis is asserted without saying…” Show full quote
“TIR 'improvement rate %/yr' has no stated formula — is it cost decline, energy density, cycle life, some blended index? And 'citation network' analysis is asserted without saying what counts as a relevant patent family or how they weight citations, so I can't tell if two companies' TIR numbers would even be comparable.”
CTO, Chemical and Materials · 1001-5000 employeessimulated “I'd still want proof the "improvement rate" metric predicts winners better than an analyst with Orbit or PatSnap before I believed it's a new category”
Chief Technology Officer, Aerospace and Defense · 5000+ employeessimulated “what would rule it out is the patent-count panel on the live radar itself: "301 Patents, YoY +6.8%" sits there with zero methodology note on what counts as…” Show full quote
“what would rule it out is the patent-count panel on the live radar itself: "301 Patents, YoY +6.8%" sits there with zero methodology note on what counts as a relevant patent or how citation-network weighting works”
CTO, Chemical and Materials · 1001-5000 employeessimulated “none of which is defined in plain terms on the page, so I'm left guessing whether TIR is a proprietary metric or just a repackaged patent-growth curve”
Chief Technology Officer, Aerospace and Defense · 5000+ employeessimulated Respondents understood the product as a patent-analytics scouting dashboard, but placed…
4 of 15
“Patent-analytics tool that scores emerging tech maturity/improvement rate to guide R&D fund/watch/kill calls.”
Senior R&D Leader, Automotive · 1001-5000 employeessimulated See all 4 comments
“I'd want to know how it differs from the patent tools we already run before I take a meeting purely on the pitch”
VP of R&D, Industrial Equipment · 1001-5000 employeessimulated “Basically a patent-analytics-driven tech scouting tool dressed up as a "decision-intelligence system." The EV/hydrogen backtest is the one bit of proof that makes it feel real - everything…” Show full quote
“Basically a patent-analytics-driven tech scouting tool dressed up as a "decision-intelligence system." The EV/hydrogen backtest is the one bit of proof that makes it feel real - everything else is buzzwords over what's fundamentally roadmapping software with better data underneath.”
Head of R&D, Industrial Equipment · 5000+ employeessimulated “it's a patent-analytics-driven strategic tech-scouting dashboard for R&D leaders, not a project management tool”
Director of R&D, Automotive · 5000+ employeessimulated
Value
One backtest is not enough evidence, and respondents wanted a live run on their own data…
6 of 15
“I'd take the meeting specifically to press on how TIR is calculated, what the false-positive rate is across other historical backtests (not just the one cherry-picked EV example),…” Show full quote
“I'd take the meeting specifically to press on how TIR is calculated, what the false-positive rate is across other historical backtests (not just the one cherry-picked EV example), and how it would have called a case where the market went the wrong way”
Director of R&D, Manufacturing · 5000+ employeessimulated See all 5 comments
“Have them run their citation-network methodology live on a chemistry my own team already has strong convictions about, and get a call that matches or sharpens what we…” Show full quote
“Have them run their citation-network methodology live on a chemistry my own team already has strong convictions about, and get a call that matches or sharpens what we believe instead of contradicting it with no explanation — that's the proof point that turns this from a pitch into a purchase order.”
VP of R&D, Manufacturing · 1001-5000 employeessimulated “If a competitor on my shortlist showed me two or three backtested cases plus let me run my own unresolved bet through their model, that beats "trust our…” Show full quote
“If a competitor on my shortlist showed me two or three backtested cases plus let me run my own unresolved bet through their model, that beats "trust our one MIT-pedigreed example" every time.”
Head of R&D, Industrial Equipment · 5000+ employeessimulated “I'd want to see the radar validated live on a technology I already know well — something where I can judge if their TRL/TIR calls match what my…” Show full quote
“I'd want to see the radar validated live on a technology I already know well — something where I can judge if their TRL/TIR calls match what my own engineers already believe”
Director of R&D, Automotive · 5000+ employeessimulated “the fund/monitor/phase-out/ignore buckets are a genuinely useful framing if the underlying TIR numbers hold up. But that's a big "if": the only real proof offered is the 2003…” Show full quote
“the fund/monitor/phase-out/ignore buckets are a genuinely useful framing if the underlying TIR numbers hold up. But that's a big "if": the only real proof offered is the 2003 lithium-ion backtest”
CTO, Industrial Equipment · 1001-5000 employeessimulated The fund/monitor/phase-out/ignore framework was the value respondents could articulate
2 of 15 · what worked
“I'd have an actual trigger point ("thresholds you set") to move from watching to funding, which is exactly the gap I have today with patent tools that just…” Show full quote
“I'd have an actual trigger point ("thresholds you set") to move from watching to funding, which is exactly the gap I have today with patent tools that just dump data on me.”
VP of R&D, Manufacturing · 1001-5000 employeessimulated See all 2 comments
“the fund/monitor/phase-out/ignore buckets are a genuinely useful framing if the underlying TIR numbers hold up. But that's a big "if": the only real proof offered is the 2003…” Show full quote
“the fund/monitor/phase-out/ignore buckets are a genuinely useful framing if the underlying TIR numbers hold up. But that's a big "if": the only real proof offered is the 2003 lithium-ion backtest”
CTO, Industrial Equipment · 1001-5000 employeessimulated
Relevance
The examples are all automotive EV, and respondents in materials, chemicals and defense…
2 of 15
“I'd need a materials or chemicals-sector example on the page itself, not just automotive EV battery and MIT-research pedigree — something like a specialty-polymer or catalyst technology radar…” Show full quote
“I'd need a materials or chemicals-sector example on the page itself, not just automotive EV battery and MIT-research pedigree — something like a specialty-polymer or catalyst technology radar with a named account, since right now everything concrete points at automotive and I'm chemicals.”
CTO, Chemical and Materials · 1001-5000 employeessimulated See all 3 comments
“the polish (custom radar UI, "30 years of MIT research") reads more like an investor deck than a sales page built for a defense-sector CTO's actual procurement concerns…” Show full quote
“the polish (custom radar UI, "30 years of MIT research") reads more like an investor deck than a sales page built for a defense-sector CTO's actual procurement concerns like data sovereignty, classification, or long-cycle sourcing, none of which are mentioned anywhere”
Chief Technology Officer, Aerospace and Defense · 5000+ employeessimulated “Right now every proof point is consumer or civilian (EVs, luxury goods), so "for me" would mean seeing our kind of long-cycle, classified-adjacent R&D bet handled, not just…” Show full quote
“Right now every proof point is consumer or civilian (EVs, luxury goods), so "for me" would mean seeing our kind of long-cycle, classified-adjacent R&D bet handled, not just gestured at with a NASA/Navy logo”
Chief Technology Officer, Aerospace and Defense · 5000+ employeessimulated The hero line and problem statement name the audience in the first screen, and readers…
7 of 15 · what worked
“helps CTOs/R&D leaders pick which tech routes to fund or kill”
Senior R&D Leader, Automotive · 1001-5000 employeessimulated See all 7 comments
“"You're judged on the future, but your entire day is the present" and "97% of your time goes to today's fires" are lines that land because they nail…” Show full quote
“"You're judged on the future, but your entire day is the present" and "97% of your time goes to today's fires" are lines that land because they nail the actual pressure of an R&D leadership job”
Director of R&D, Manufacturing · 5000+ employeessimulated “That's explicitly my job description, no inference needed. The "You ask one question, we run the whole engine" section reinforces it with an actual example question”
VP of R&D, Industrial Equipment · 1001-5000 employeessimulated “"You're judged on the future, but your entire day is the present" and "It's a very high-stakes solitary game" nail the R&D-leader loneliness I actually feel, so whoever…” Show full quote
“"You're judged on the future, but your entire day is the present" and "It's a very high-stakes solitary game" nail the R&D-leader loneliness I actually feel, so whoever wrote this has talked to real CTOs, not just marketers guessing at pain points.”
VP of R&D, Manufacturing · 1001-5000 employeessimulated “Pretty quick, actually - the subhead "You're judged on the future, but your entire day is the present" plus "We help CTOs and R&D leaders decide which competing…” Show full quote
“Pretty quick, actually - the subhead "You're judged on the future, but your entire day is the present" plus "We help CTOs and R&D leaders decide which competing technical routes to: fund, monitor closely, phase out or ignore" tells you the problem and audience in the first two lines.”
Head of R&D, Industrial Equipment · 5000+ employeessimulated “It was clear fast — the subhead "You're judged on the future, but your entire day is the present" plus the line "We help CTOs, and R&D leaders…” Show full quote
“It was clear fast — the subhead "You're judged on the future, but your entire day is the present" plus the line "We help CTOs, and R&D leaders decide which competing technical routes to: fund, monitor closely, phase out or ignore" told me the problem and audience within the first screen.”
CTO, Chemical and Materials · 1001-5000 employeessimulated “the hero line "You're judged on the future, but your entire day is the present" plus the immediate follow-up "GetFocus is a technology decision-intelligence system for high-stakes R&D…” Show full quote
“the hero line "You're judged on the future, but your entire day is the present" plus the immediate follow-up "GetFocus is a technology decision-intelligence system for high-stakes R&D technology bets”
Director of R&D, Automotive · 5000+ employeessimulated
Brand alignment
The customer logos read as scattered pilots rather than domain credibility
5 of 15
“none are industrial equipment peers doing competing-route evaluation like I do, so I have no proof this works in my domain versus the patent tools I already pay…” Show full quote
“none are industrial equipment peers doing competing-route evaluation like I do, so I have no proof this works in my domain versus the patent tools I already pay for”
VP of R&D, Industrial Equipment · 1001-5000 employeessimulated See all 4 comments
“a sharp backtest story sitting next to an unsourced "301 Patents, +6.8% YoY" panel reads like a young company that's better at narrative than at instrumenting proof for…” Show full quote
“a sharp backtest story sitting next to an unsourced "301 Patents, +6.8% YoY" panel reads like a young company that's better at narrative than at instrumenting proof for someone as skeptical as me.”
CTO, Chemical and Materials · 1001-5000 employeessimulated “the mix of "US NAVY, NASA, LVMH, Rabobank, Diam" reads like an early-stage company grabbing every pilot client it can across totally unrelated sectors, not a firm with…” Show full quote
“the mix of "US NAVY, NASA, LVMH, Rabobank, Diam" reads like an early-stage company grabbing every pilot client it can across totally unrelated sectors, not a firm with a focused sales motion yet”
Chief Technology Officer, Aerospace and Defense · 5000+ employeessimulated “That logo scattergun actually undercuts the pitch — feels like a scrappy team collecting logos rather than a vendor with depth in my industry.”
Director of R&D, Aerospace and Defense · 5000+ employeessimulated
05
How this works
Who we simulated (15 personas)
15 AI-simulated personas matched to your target market. Each answered independently, without seeing your goal, the scoring criteria, or each other’s answers. Attribution is role, industry and company size only.
VP of R&DIndustrial Equipment · 1001-5000 employeesUS
Director of R&DManufacturing · 5000+ employeesEU
Senior R&D LeaderAutomotive · 1001-5000 employeesUS
Chief Technology OfficerAerospace and Defense · 5000+ employeesEU
CTOChemical and Materials · 1001-5000 employeesUS
Head of R&DIndustrial Equipment · 5000+ employeesEU
VP of R&DManufacturing · 1001-5000 employeesUS
Director of R&DAutomotive · 5000+ employeesEU
Senior R&D LeaderAerospace and Defense · 1001-5000 employeesUS
Chief Technology OfficerChemical and Materials · 5000+ employeesEU
CTOIndustrial Equipment · 1001-5000 employeesUS
Head of R&DManufacturing · 5000+ employeesEU
VP of R&DAutomotive · 1001-5000 employeesUS
Director of R&DAerospace and Defense · 5000+ employeesEU
Senior R&D LeaderChemical and Materials · 1001-5000 employeesUS
Methodology
Every answer on this page was written by an AI model role-playing a buyer profile, scored on Wynter’s B2B Message Layers framework. The personas were sampled in code across role, industry, company size and behavioral traits; the model wrote only the answers. Scores arrive through fixed verdict categories and the counts are computed in our own code, so no number here was written by a model.
Score details: the count and the strength
The count is how many personas cleared the bar on each question. A yes can be unhesitating or come with reservations; the scorecard counts both as a yes, and this is the only place the difference is shown. Per layer:
- Clarity: 13 of 15, all with reservations
- Relevance: 15 of 15, 11 without hesitation, 4 with reservations
- Value: 14 of 15, all with reservations
- Differentiation: 9 of 15, all with reservations
These answers are AI-simulated and directional. Validate anything you’re betting on with real buyers, your ICPs.
Your next 3 moves
- 1.Move the 2003 lithium-ion backtest above the logo wall.
- 2.Spell out TRL and the radar quadrant labels in plain words.
See what real buyers say.
A detailed, section-by-section message test report from verified B2B professionals who are actually in-market for what you sell.
Trusted by
RetentionThis report is kept for 60 days, until 24 Oct 2026, then deleted along with the personas, their answers and everything derived from them. The link stays live for that whole period so it can be shared or revisited, and stops working afterwards.
The email address it was requested from is kept beyond that, because it subscribes you to the newsletter — that was the price of the report. You can unsubscribe in one click from any issue, which stops the email without affecting a report still inside its 60 days. The public report page never shows the requester’s address.
The email address it was requested from is kept beyond that, because it subscribes you to the newsletter — that was the price of the report. You can unsubscribe in one click from any issue, which stops the email without affecting a report still inside its 60 days. The public report page never shows the requester’s address.