Start with the decision
Define what the comparison claims: a component difference, production stage or whole service. Identify the baseline by product, version and date. Words such as lower or improved are incomplete when readers cannot tell what is being compared.
Build the record
Record functional outcome, dimensions, life, deployments, supports, print and finish for both options. Keep method, units, geography and stages aligned. Note required replacement or additional components rather than comparing a bare material with a finished assembled alternative.
Check before acting
Ask whether both routes can deliver the stated service and whether exclusions are equivalent. Retain unknown dimensions and test relevant uncertainty. Where alignment is impossible, present the difference in scope and a request for comparable data instead of ranking a winner. A valid narrow result should stay narrow in public wording.
Worked example — illustrative
A fictional supplier compares a base-panel production figure with another display’s complete delivered footprint. The buyer records the mismatch and requests consistent stages and service requirements. The original figures remain discoverable, but the comparison card does not claim an overall winner until a suitable baseline exists.
Keep a useful handover
Close the “Assess whether a comparison uses a fair baseline” decision with a named owner and a dated evidence version. The next working record is “Check evidence scope”. Record whether that step is planned or confirmed; retain the prior decision if new information changes the instruction.
- Identify the stated baseline.
- Align service and units.
- Include required components.
- Check boundaries and dates.
- Keep narrow results narrow.
