# Dealix — Strategic Defensibility Scorecard

> First measurement at Week 12. Re-measured every quarter.
> Each question: 0–2 points. Max 20.
> Honest scoring only — be more generous with your competitors than yourself.

---

## Scoring rubric (per question)

- **0** — No evidence we have this
- **1** — Directional evidence, not yet strong
- **2** — Strong evidence (data, customer language, wins)

---

## 1. Data Moat

**Q1.1** — Do we have data competitors cannot access (e.g. Arabic formal-register corpus, PDPL evidence patterns, board-pack styles)?
Score: __ / 2 — evidence:

**Q1.2** — Does every customer interaction make the product measurably better for the *next* customer?
Score: __ / 2 — evidence:

**Subtotal**: __ / 4

---

## 2. Distribution Moat

**Q2.1** — Are customers actively referring peers within 6 months of sign-up (H12 check)?
Score: __ / 2 — evidence:

**Q2.2** — Do we have 2+ acquisition channels that competitors cannot easily copy (e.g. KSA CFO community, Arabic enterprise content depth, government procurement whitelist)?
Score: __ / 2 — evidence:

**Subtotal**: __ / 4

---

## 3. Technical Moat

**Q3.1** — Is there a capability that would take a competitor ≥ 6 months to replicate (durable execution + evidence graph + RLS + OTel compliance correlation stack)?
Score: __ / 2 — evidence:

**Q3.2** — Is Arabic-first quality *measurably* better than any alternative (blind customer test, eval suite results, documented examples)?
Score: __ / 2 — evidence:

**Subtotal**: __ / 4

---

## 4. Brand Moat

**Q4.1** — If a customer switches away, is there emotional / identity loss ("this is *our* board room tool")?
Score: __ / 2 — evidence:

**Q4.2** — Would customers defend Dealix unprompted in public forums or peer conversations?
Score: __ / 2 — evidence:

**Subtotal**: __ / 4

---

## 5. Switching-Cost Moat

**Q5.1** — Is there data / workflow / integration lock-in that is painful to migrate out of?
Score: __ / 2 — evidence:

**Q5.2** — Do users build Dealix-specific expertise (advanced admins, workflow owners) that would be lost on churn?
Score: __ / 2 — evidence:

**Subtotal**: __ / 4

---

## Final Score

**Total**: __ / 20

### Interpretation

| Score | Meaning |
|-------|---------|
| 16–20 | Category-defining trajectory. Compound. |
| 10–15 | Strong but not yet defensible. Invest in weakest moat. |
| 5–9   | Commoditizable. Rethink positioning or narrow scope. |
| 0–4   | No moat. Change fundamentals, or the business will be out-executed. |

---

## Improvement plan (top 1 action per weakest moat)

- Weakest moat identified:
- Single action for next quarter:
- Evidence we will accept as success:

---

## History

| Quarter | Score | Weakest moat | Top action taken |
|---------|-------|--------------|------------------|
| Q1 2026 (W12) | __ | __ | __ |
| Q2 2026 | __ | __ | __ |
| Q3 2026 | __ | __ | __ |
| Q4 2026 | __ | __ | __ |