Public conceptual framework

What an opportunity score can—and cannot—explain

Evidence completeness

Ask whether the material facts needed for the research question are present, current, and traceable. More fields do not automatically mean better evidence; relevance and provenance matter.

Comparability

Check that condition, variation, quantity, included parts, fulfillment terms, and intended use align. A larger set of weak comparables can be less useful than a smaller coherent set.

Price consistency

Consider whether observed prices describe a reasonably comparable range or a mixture of bundles, conditions, accessories, and outliers. Public examples never publish a live price score.

Fulfillment clarity

Separate a displayed delivery promise from evidence about dispatch, tracking, packaging, and observed completion. Unknown fulfillment remains unknown.

Seller diversity

Consider whether evidence is distributed across independent sellers or depends heavily on one source. Identity and concentration require current, properly obtained evidence.

Return-risk indicators

Look for fragile construction, fit ambiguity, installation complexity, condition sensitivity, or unclear instructions. These indicators invite investigation; they are not forecasts.

Seasonality and stale-data risk

Evidence may lose relevance as availability, price, sellers, or demand context changes. Timing should be explicit, and old observations should not be silently treated as current.

How to read the labels

The demonstration library uses neutral editorial labels: Stronger evidence, Mixed evidence, Limited evidence, and More research required. None is a transaction recommendation, profit prediction, or production score.

Continue with the Opportunity Library or review the full editorial methodology.