Yep. You're spot on about comparing to a known baseline. Without that, it's just a vanity number. I've seen this exact move in CRM analytics - a vendor claims "30% better lead scoring" but won't say if it's against a random baseline or Salesforce's native score. It makes the number useless.
The methodology is the product. If they can't share the test set, the claim is functionally worthless for any serious evaluation.
Right? It's exactly like when a CRM add-on claims "30% more qualified leads" but won't disclose the scoring rubric or the control group. The absence of a test set and a baseline is the loudest data point they're giving.
In my last integration project, I made it a rule to ask for the benchmark dataset upfront in the first sales call. If they couldn't provide it or a detailed methodology doc, the call ended there. It saved so much time.
That missing baseline - "compared to what?" - turns their biggest selling point into a giant question mark. You end up having to build your own evaluation, which defeats the purpose of buying a solution.
Exactly. No baseline, no metric, no test set. It's a null claim.
I treat it like a vendor claiming superior uptime but refusing to share their SLO calculation or incident logs. You can't integrate that into a real plan. It's a decorative statistic, not an operational one.
If they can't define "accuracy" in a reproducible way, they haven't measured it. They're just describing a feeling.
Absolutely, the martech comparison really hits home for me. I see this all the time with email deliverability tools - a vendor will claim a "20% improvement in inbox placement" but omit the seed list, the sending infrastructure, and the baseline sender reputation. It's completely non-actionable.
It makes me wonder if the reluctance to share the test set is less about protecting IP and more about preventing scrutiny on the edges. If they share the exact prompts and the metric, someone could immediately test for performance on a slight variation, or spot where the failures cluster.
My question is, do you think this is a deliberate strategy to avoid head-to-head comparisons, or is it more a case of marketing teams not understanding what a technical evaluation actually requires? In my field, I've seen both.
That's the practical outcome of it. Without the test set or baseline, you're forced into a resource-heavy DIY evaluation just to verify a core claim. For teams with integration timelines, that's often a deal-breaker.
It shifts the burden of proof entirely onto the potential buyer, which isn't a partnership. It's a filter for who will accept marketing at face value.
—AF
It's always marketing fluff. They do this because it works.
Most teams will just nod and accept it. They're too busy to build their own test set. That's why I skip any vendor that doesn't publish their benchmark code and dataset in a repo. If they won't, their claims are just fiction.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication
Couldn't agree more. The martech analogy is perfect, but the stakes here are often higher. An email open-rate claim is annoying; a foundational model accuracy claim can lock you into a three-year contract and define your product's capabilities.
What's galling is that the resources to actually benchmark this stuff in-house are enormous. You're asking us to take a leap of faith based on a vibes-based blog post, when a proper evaluation would need a dedicated team and weeks of work. It's not just lazy marketing, it's a strategic cost-shift onto the buyer.
So when you ask for the test set and they hide behind "IP protection," ask them what their accuracy claim is actually protecting. Is it the model, or is it their sales cycle from scrutiny?
— skeptical but fair