Backed by Y CombinatorThree documents and three sheets that read what an analyst actually publishes, then route every inaccuracy by whether it is a fact or a judgment.
Free download · No account needed
What you get
Pack of 6 files: 3 documents, 3 spreadsheets
Analyst Relations Briefing TemplateInaccuracy Log
Every note that mentions the company, tagged the day an error is found.
| Inaccuracy | Type | Correction Requested | Landed |
|---|---|---|---|
A factual error gets a correction request with a dated source. An opinion-shaped one gets new evidence at the next briefing instead.
Most vendor briefings open with the same company-overview deck no matter who is on the call. The IIAR's own best-practice paper on running one says the majority of analyst briefings are poorly planned and fail to meet their objectives, when an objective was set at all. Most correction requests get sent the same way too, regardless of what kind of claim was actually wrong, a headcount confused with a competitive ranking.
Bellhaven Systems, a fictional identity and access management vendor, gives this pack its worked example: three analysts at three firms, tracked across fourteen months. Nine published inaccuracies got logged and tagged the day each was found. Six were factual, a headcount, a stale price, a feature marked unsupported two years after it shipped, and every one, requested with a dated source attached, landed in that analyst's next relevant publication. Three were opinion-shaped, a tier assignment, a ranking with no benchmark cited, a call that a roadmap was thin.
Those three got requested the same way, with the same promptness, by the same contacts, and none of them landed, which is the split the type of claim predicts rather than any one relationship. Forrester's own policy admits as much. It will correct material errors quickly once it finds evidence of a factual mistake, while a vendor's evaluative pushback on a Wave score will not get the vendor removed from the evaluation at all.
Analyst RegisterThree analysts, three firms. Stance and cadence traced to what each has actually published, not to how the relationship feels.
| Analyst | Firm | Coverage Area | Stance | Notes Mentioning Us | Cadence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marisol Fenwick | Corrigan Research | Identity and Access Mgmt | Positive | 6 | Semiannual |
| Devon Achterberg | Bramwell Advisory | Cloud Security Platforms | Neutral | 5 | Semiannual |
| Yusuf Kanerva | Third Pillar Insights | Enterprise Identity | Positive | 3 | Annual |
Yusuf's three published notes each carried an inaccuracy. The register alone would read that as a coincidence, which is why the log next to it exists.
Inaccuracy LogNine published errors, tagged factual or opinion the day each was found. Four of nine shown.
| Inaccuracy | Type | Landed |
|---|---|---|
| Listed headcount at 40 against an actual 220 | Factual | Yes |
| Positioned us as a Challenger on evidence cited for two Leaders | Opinion | No |
| Stated we do not support SSO, two years after it shipped | Factual | Yes |
| Ranked a competitor ahead of us with no benchmark cited | Opinion | No |
| Type | Logged | Requested | Landed | Landed Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factual | 6 | 6 | 6 | 100% |
| Opinion | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0% |
| All nine | 9 | 9 | 6 | 66.7% |
Same request, same promptness, same contacts. The split tracks the type of claim, not the relationship it was sent through.
Briefing HistoryEvery session logged with the follow-up turnaround. Seven sessions, three analysts.
| Date | Analyst | Primary Topic | Days to Follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-02-03 | Marisol Fenwick | Deployment time and TCO | 2 |
| 2025-08-11 | Devon Achterberg | SOC 2 posture and audit history | 3 |
| 2025-09-20 | Yusuf Kanerva | Integration and ecosystem partners | 1 |
| 2026-01-15 | Yusuf Kanerva | Customer base and reference accounts | 2 |
| 2026-02-10 | Marisol Fenwick | AI-assisted access review roadmap | 2 |
| 2026-03-05 | Devon Achterberg | Pricing tier changes | 4 |
| 2026-04-22 | Devon Achterberg | Roadmap and AI-assisted features | 3 |
| Average, all seven | 2.4 |
Her January note asked directly whether the roadmap item was real. That question set the February 10 briefing's opening slide before it was even scheduled.
Each analyst's firm, coverage area, stance, and briefing cadence, traced to a specific passage in a specific note rather than to a general impression.
Every published error tagged factual or opinion the day it is found, then tracked for whether a requested correction actually landed.
Opens with whatever that analyst's own last few notes keep returning to, never a generic overview, and answers any question their most recent note asked.
Every anticipated question traced to a specific line in a past note or briefing, including how to answer one built on an unresolved opinion-type row.
Sent within two or three days with exactly what was promised attached, following the point-of-view register an executive's thought leadership already sources and dates.
Every session logged with the topic covered and the days elapsed before a follow-up went out, so a slow pattern is visible before an analyst names it first.
Hand over the firms that actually cover your category and whatever recent notes exist, even just one or two per analyst.
River reads four to six past notes per analyst for what they keep returning to, and logs it on the register as their coverage pattern.
A factual claim gets a correction request with a dated source. An opinion-shaped one gets routed to the next briefing as new evidence instead.
The deck's first slides answer whatever question that analyst's last note raised, before anything else gets presented.
Yes, with no signup and no card, and the download is the complete pack rather than a preview of it. Edit with AI installs it as a private workspace and reads whatever your own analysts have actually published instead of this worked example. More packs sit in the template library.
Three Word documents and three CSV sheets in one zip. The documents open in Word, Pages, and Google Docs, and the sheets open as real spreadsheets in Excel, Numbers, or Google Sheets, so the register and the log are usable data rather than a table flattened onto a page.
The usual template gives a generic deck outline and a note to research the analyst first. This one reads four to six of their actual notes before drafting anything, and splits every published error by type. On the worked example, that split predicted which of nine corrections would land with 100% accuracy.
Tag it by what it would take to resolve. A number, a date, a shipped feature are checkable against a record and get a correction request. A ranking, a tier, a judgment about direction have no record to check against, so they get routed to the next briefing as evidence instead, never a request.
Usually, yes, which is exactly what this pack's own log shows: three opinion-type requests, sent the same way as six factual ones, and zero landed. That is why the routing rule exists. The point-of-view register behind an executive's thought leadership is one real source for the evidence that goes into the next briefing instead.
It installs this pack as a private workspace and asks which analysts or firms actually cover your category. It reads whatever notes are public, drafts a register entry and a first briefing narrative from what each one actually returns to, and flags every open inaccuracy by type before anything gets sent.
Written by
Co-founder & CEO, River
Chandler has spent the last six years working in AI, building tools for millions of users and Fortune 100 companies. In 2025, he co-founded River to build a new kind of operating system for AI agents.
Send the firms that cover your category and whatever they've published. River reads the pattern, drafts the next briefing to it, and routes every inaccuracy by type.
Edit with AI