Inside a Quintara Business Audit Report: Section by Section

Every Quintara business audit report is custom to brief — but the structure is the same. Cover page, sourced evidence, interpretation, named next move, counter-argument, appendix. Six sections, in this order, every time. This post walks through each one so you know what arrives before you pay.

Publishing the structure openly is a choice. Most research providers describe their work in marketing language: rigorous, comprehensive, data-driven. Those words tell you nothing about what actually shows up in your inbox. This post tells you exactly what shows up — what each section looks like, what claims it makes, and what the deliverable does not include.

Section I — The cover page

The cover is one page. It carries the named next move: the specific decision the evidence supports, in one or two sentences, with the number attached. Not "consider exploring." It reads: "Reprice the annual plan to €1,997 by Friday. Bundle the top 3 SKUs to neutralise NORDA's entry tier. Estimated upside: €420K of protected ARR over 12 months."

The cover is written first, not last. Before the AI draft runs, the analyst writes a single sentence — what would the named next move be if the research confirms our prior? That sentence drives the entire research plan. Every claim in the body either survives because it supports the named move, or it gets cut.

Section II — The sourced evidence

The body is organised by theme. Each claim is followed by a citation: a named source, a URL, a date, a quote where possible. There is no "industry wisdom" floor. If a number appears, you can trace it. If we could not verify a claim, it is not in the report.

We use a three-tier rubric for source quality. Tier 1 sources are primary: filings (Companies House, KvK, Bolagsverket), interview transcripts with named consent, pricing-page screenshots with timestamps. Tier 2 sources are secondary but verifiable: press releases, public datasets, third-party databases. Tier 3 sources — aggregator estimates, industry reports we did not author — appear only as cross-references, never as standalone evidence for a strategic claim.

For any threat-ranked competitor, the standard is at least three Tier-1 primary sources. Two for non-strategic claims. Interview transcripts are available to the client on request, redacted for source-anonymity guarantees.

Section III — The interpretation

A useful report distinguishes between what the data shows and what it means. "Norda just shipped a €19/mo subscription" is a fact. "Norda just shipped a €19/mo subscription, which undercuts your Plus tier by 32%, and the unit economics of their 4-product bundle suggest they intend to make this their default acquisition path" is an interpretation of three facts together.

Every interpretation in the report cites the facts that underlie it. Every recommendation cites the interpretation that supports it. The reader can challenge any layer — the source, the interpretation, or the recommendation — without having to take the rest on faith. This three-layer structure is what separates a sourced report from a confident-sounding deck.

Section IV — The named next move

The named next move section is the bridge from research to action. It states one move, not three options. It includes the number — what changes, by when, with what expected outcome. It is the only part of the report that gets read by the people who do not have time to read the rest.

We will not name a move the evidence does not clearly support. If the question is genuinely ambiguous after the research, we say so on the cover, refund the brief, and explain in writing what would need to be true for a clean answer to be possible. A hedged report is not worth shipping.

Section V — The strongest counter-argument we found

The most useful section of any rigorous report is the one that argues against its own recommendation. If we cannot find a meaningful counter-argument, we did not look hard enough.

Every report includes a section titled "The strongest counter-argument we found." It states the most credible objection to the named next move, names the evidence behind it, and explains why we still recommend what we recommend. This is not balance for its own sake — it is the test of whether the recommendation survives serious challenge.

In practice, the counter-argument is almost always the section a sharp internal challenger raises in your next meeting. If we have not surfaced it, the report does not survive that meeting. Including it is a form of stress-testing the recommendation before it leaves our hands.

Section VI — The appendix

The appendix carries the raw sources: the screenshots, the transcript pages, the URLs, the working spreadsheet (.xlsx) we built during research, and the methodology notes. The reader can audit any claim without contacting us. The appendix is for readers who want to check the source standard. For most readers, the cover page is enough.

When we refund — the explicit rules

Rule 1 — the evidence will not support a named move. If during research we determine the evidence will not support a named next move, we say so before delivery and refund the full brief. We do not deliver hedged reports.

Rule 2 — 30-day no-questions. 30-day money back on every product, no process, no win-back attempt, no survey. Email refund@quintara-reports.com or click the cancel link in the order confirmation. We would rather earn future business than trap you in this purchase.

Rule 3 — structural mismatch. If during scoping we determine the question is structurally mismatched to our format — for example, it requires primary interview data we cannot collect at this price tier — we say so and either route you to a different product or refund. This is also why we offer the Free Decision Diagnostic first: it scopes whether the question fits before you pay.

What this is not

A Quintara report is not a six-week consulting engagement. It does not include primary interviews you can attend. It does not produce a steering-committee deck. It is not a relationship — it is a deliverable. If you need an embedded analyst on your team for a multi-quarter strategic initiative, hire a consultancy or a fractional firm. We mean that.

The format works when you have one specific decision in scope, the evidence you need is publicly available or verifiable in 24 hours, and you want a sourced recommendation now rather than in six weeks. For most strategic decisions a small business or early-stage company faces, that is the right fit. For the rest, the Free Decision Diagnostic will tell you so before you pay.

See it for yourself

The anonymised sample report shows three ungated pages — the executive summary, the competitor table, and the citations footer — in the actual format you would receive. The full 32-page PDF is available by email, optional. The Free Decision Diagnostic applies the methodology to your specific question in 24 hours, before you commit to a paid tier.