A methodology you can audit
Every report follows the same rigorous process: structured, verified, and traceable.
How scoping works
Every engagement begins with a precise scope definition. The research question, target entities, geographic boundaries, and required output structure are defined before any investigation begins. This eliminates scope creep and ensures the final deliverable answers the question that was actually asked.
Coverage requirements (the dimensions the report must address) are enumerated upfront. If the question is about competitive positioning in European markets, the scope specifies which competitors, which geographies, and which comparison criteria matter. Nothing is left implicit.
The result is a research plan you can review before work begins. If the scope is wrong, you adjust it. If it is right, you have a contract for what the report will contain, and a baseline for evaluating whether the deliverable met its objectives.
How coverage is achieved
Research proceeds across multiple dimensions in parallel. Rather than following a single thread and hoping it leads somewhere useful, the methodology investigates each coverage requirement independently. This ensures breadth without sacrificing depth on any single dimension.
Each dimension draws from multiple source types: public filings, industry reports, press coverage, regulatory databases, and proprietary datasets where available. The goal is triangulation: no single finding rests on a single source.
Coverage completeness is tracked against the original scope. If a dimension cannot be adequately addressed (because data is unavailable or unreliable), the report says so explicitly rather than padding the section with low-confidence filler. Gaps are documented, not hidden.
How citations work
Every key claim in a Stonesight report links to its source. This is not a bibliography at the end. It is inline attribution throughout the document. When a report states a market size figure, you can see where it came from. When it describes a competitor’s pricing, you can trace it to the original source.
Every report includes a full sources appendix. Sources are categorized by type and relevance. This gives your team the ability to independently verify findings, assess source quality, and extend the research where needed.
Example citation format
“The European cybersecurity market reached $38.2B in 2025, growing at 12.4% CAGR.”[1]
[1] European Cybersecurity Market Report, ENISA, March 2025. Published by the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity. Section 3.2, p. 47.
Citations are not decorative. They are the mechanism by which a report earns trust. If a claim cannot be cited, it is either flagged as an estimate with its reasoning shown, or it is excluded.
How verification works
Verification is not a final proofread. It is a multi-stage process embedded throughout the research workflow. Individual findings are reviewed before they are synthesized into higher-level conclusions. This prevents errors from propagating through the report.
Cross-checking compares findings across independent sources. When a data point appears in one source, the methodology looks for corroboration elsewhere. When corroboration is not found, the finding is flagged with its confidence level so your team can weigh it accordingly.
Structural verification checks that the report addresses every dimension in the original scope, that conclusions follow from the evidence presented, and that no section contradicts another. The goal is internal consistency: a report that holds together under scrutiny.
How updates work
Research does not end when the first version ships. Markets shift, competitors make moves, and regulations change. Stonesight reports support versioning: re-running the same scope against current data to produce an updated deliverable.
Change tracking highlights what shifted between versions. New findings are marked. Revised figures show both the previous and current values. Removed items are noted with context explaining why they no longer apply.
This makes updates useful rather than redundant. Your team does not need to re-read the entire report to understand what changed. The delta is surfaced explicitly, so attention goes where it matters.
Conflicting sources
Credible sources disagree. Market size estimates vary across analysts. Regulatory interpretations differ between jurisdictions. Competitive intelligence is inherently incomplete. The methodology does not pretend otherwise.
When sources conflict, both positions are presented with full attribution. The report does not silently choose one figure over another or average them into a false consensus. Instead, the discrepancy is flagged, the sources are cited, and the reasoning behind each estimate is made visible.
This transparency is a feature. Decision-makers need to know where certainty ends and judgment begins. A report that hides disagreement is less useful than one that surfaces it clearly, because the disagreement exists whether the report acknowledges it or not.
What we don’t do
Boundaries matter as much as capabilities. Knowing what a methodology excludes tells you as much about its rigor as knowing what it includes. Here is where Stonesight draws the line.
Reports do not include speculative forecasts presented as fact. Projections are labeled as projections, with the assumptions and sources behind them made explicit. We do not generate proprietary data points. Every figure traces to an external source or is clearly labeled as a derived estimate.
We do not introduce new un-sourced claims during final editing. Findings remain traceable to sources. The synthesis step organizes and presents; it does not invent.
This constraint is deliberate. A research methodology that allows unsourced claims to enter at the final stage undermines everything that came before it. Traceability is maintained end-to-end, or it is not traceability at all.