Every high-stakes decision follows the same ritual.

Before an acquisition, the deal team opens a data room. Revenue. EBITDA. Churn. Customer concentration. Contracts. Financials get audited. Legal gets reviewed. The numbers get stress-tested.

Before a vendor contract is signed, procurement runs the process. RFPs go out. Demos get scheduled. References get called. Scorecards get filled. The shortlist gets narrowed.

Before a pitch, the consulting team does the prep. Website scraped. Investor deck reviewed. Leadership changes tracked. Glassdoor skimmed. Competitive landscape mapped.

Before a campaign, the agency does discovery. Brand guidelines pulled. Social sentiment scanned. Competitor creative catalogued. Stakeholder interviews scheduled.

Before a build, the product team writes the MRD. Customer interviews conducted. Surveys deployed. Sales feedback collected. Competitive features compared.

Different contexts.
Different buyers.
Different stakes.

Same pattern. And the same gap.

Who You Are	What You’re Given	What You’re Missing	What It Costs
M&A / Corp Dev	Data rooms, financials, management narratives	What customers believe when the company isn’t in the room	Overpaying for positioning that doesn’t exist. Discovering it 18 months post-close.
Procurement	RFPs, demos, curated references	What frustrated customers say on platforms the vendor doesn’t control	Signing into a broken relationship. Managing it for years.
Management Consultants	Websites, decks, press releases	How the market perceives the client vs. how the client perceives themselves	Competing on credentials. Winning on luck. Losing on price.
Marketing & Brand Agencies	Brand guidelines, stakeholder interviews, discovery decks	The gap between the brand’s story and the customer’s experience	Selling execution. Watching margins compress.
Product Teams	Interviews, surveys, competitive matrices	What customers actually believe and choose — unprompted	Building the wrong thing. Launching on time. Flatline adoption.

Every row has the same gap: what companies claim vs. what customers believe. The information exists. It’s public. It’s just not in the process you’re running.

The Assumption Everyone Operates On

Each of these rituals rests on an unspoken belief:

“If I do the standard diligence, I’ll have the information I need to make a good decision.”

This belief feels reasonable. The processes exist because they’ve been refined over decades. Smart people follow them. Institutions endorse them. Checklists get completed. Boxes get ticked.

But there’s a structural flaw no checklist addresses.

Every piece of information in these processes has something in common: it was created or curated by the party being evaluated.

The data room was assembled by the seller. The RFP response was crafted by the vendor. The website was written by the company. The brand guidelines were authored by the client. The competitive analysis is based on what competitors chose to publish.

You’re not doing diligence.
You’re consuming a narrative.

The Curation Problem

This isn’t about deception. Most companies aren’t lying. They’re doing what every company does — presenting themselves in the best possible light.

The data room includes the metrics that support the valuation. It doesn’t include the customer complaints that never made it to the CRM.

The vendor’s references are their three happiest customers. You’ll never talk to the ones who churned. You’ll never hear from the ones quietly waiting out their contract.

The website says “customer-obsessed.” It doesn’t mention that support tickets take eleven days to close.

The pitch deck says “category leader.” It doesn’t show that customers name three competitors interchangeably when asked who leads the space.

The MRD is built on customer interviews. But customers in interviews tell you what they think you want to hear. Or they rationalize preferences they don’t act on. Research shows 34% of stated preferences predict actual purchase behavior. The other 66% is noise.

The information isn’t wrong. It’s just incomplete in a systematic way.

What’s missing is what customers believe, say, and experience when the company isn’t in the room.

That’s the gap.

Where the Gap Hides

The gap isn’t hidden in the sense that it’s secret. It’s hidden in the sense that no one in the standard process is looking for it.

In M&A, the gap hides between revenue and retention. A company can have strong numbers and weak positioning. Customers stay because switching is painful, not because they’re loyal. That’s a retention cliff that won’t show up until 18 months post-close when “strategic acquisition” becomes “turnaround project.”

In procurement, the gap hides between the demo and the deployment. Every vendor sounds enterprise-grade in the sales process. Reality sets in after signing: implementation takes twice as long, support tickets go unanswered, and the “intuitive UI” requires three weeks of training. The pitch didn’t match the product. You just didn’t have a way to know.

In consulting, the gap hides between the company’s narrative and the market’s perception. The CEO says, “innovation leader.” Customers say “safe, boring choice.” That’s not a messaging problem. That’s a strategic blind spot. If you walk onto the pitch with only the company’s version, you’re competing on credentials — just like everyone else.

In agencies, the gap hides between the brand and the experience. The guidelines say “premium.” Customers say, “overpriced for what you get.” That’s not a brand problem. That’s a pricing problem wearing the brand’s clothes. If you don’t see it, you’ll spend six months optimizing the wrong thing.

In product, the gap hides between assumed needs and actual beliefs. A feature you thought was differentiated? Customers don’t even associate it with your category. A positioning you thought was ownable? The market already gives it to a competitor. A problem you thought was urgent? Customers have lived with it so long they’ve stopped looking for solutions. The MRD felt rigorous. The launch fell flat. The gap was there before you wrote the first spec.

Same pattern. Different costume.

The Cost of the Gap

The gap isn’t theoretical. It has a price.

In M&A, it’s a valuation built on claims instead of position. You pay a premium for a brand that owns nothing in the customer’s mind. The write-down comes later, after the integration playbook fails.

In procurement, it’s a three-year contract with a vendor whose customers are frustrated but locked in. You’ll spend more time managing the relationship than benefiting from it. And someone’s career is tied to a decision that looked right in the scorecard.

In consulting, it’s a pitch that competes on methodology, reputation, and price — the same three levers everyone else pulls. You win some, lose some, and never quite understand why. The insight that would have changed the dynamic was sitting in public data you didn’t have time to synthesize.

In agencies, it’s margin compression. When you can’t show the client something they can’t see themselves, you’re selling execution. Execution is a commodity. Procurement treats it like one.

In product, it’s $5M and 18 months building something the market didn’t want the way you thought they did. The launch hits milestones. Adoption flatlines. Someone schedules the “we need to revisit the strategy” meeting. Nobody names the gap, but everyone feels it.

The cost isn’t always catastrophic. Sometimes it’s just friction. Slower deals. Longer sales cycles. Clients who churn without explaining why. Products that work but don’t win.

But the gap is always expensive. The only question is whether you see it before you commit or after you’re in too deep.

What’s Actually Knowable

Here’s what makes this frustrating: the gap isn’t unknowable. It’s just unknown.

Customers talk. Not in surveys designed by the company. Not in interviews where they know who’s asking. They talk in forums, on review sites, in Reddit threads, on LinkedIn comments, on Glassdoor reviews, on Trustpilot complaints, in G2 comparisons, and in YouTube rants.

They talk about what they expected versus what they got. What they were promised versus what they experienced. Who they considered versus who they chose. Why they stayed versus why they’re leaving.

This language exists. It’s public. It’s unfiltered. It’s not curated by the company being evaluated.

But it’s scattered across fifty platforms. It’s buried in noise. It’s time-consuming to synthesize. And no one in the standard diligence process has three days to read Reddit threads about a vendor’s implementation failures.

So the gap stays invisible. Not because it’s hidden. Because no one has time to look.

The Shift

The shift isn’t about working harder. It’s about looking somewhere different.

Traditional diligence asks: What does this company say about themselves?

Perception diligence asks: What do their customers believe about them?

Traditional diligence consumes the narrative.

Perception diligence tests it.

The deal team that sees the gap before the LOI negotiates differently. They price risk that isn’t in the model. They walk away from deals that look good on paper but feel wrong in the market.

The procurement leader who sees the gap before the contract asks sharper questions. They negotiate terms that account for implementation reality, not sales promises. They avoid the vendors whose customers are quietly miserable.

The consultant who sees the gap before the pitch doesn’t present credentials. They present a mirror. They show the client something true about their business that the client couldn’t see from the inside. That’s not a pitch. That’s a demonstration of what they do.

The agency that sees the gap before kickoff doesn’t compete on process. They walk in with proof they can see something the client can’t. That’s not a proposal. That’s the work — started before they’re hired.

The product team that sees the gap before the PRD builds differently. They kill features that feel good internally but mean nothing externally. They prioritize what customers actually believe, not what stakeholders assume.

Same information environment. Different results. Because they looked where the standard process doesn’t.

The Identity Question

This isn’t about tools. It’s about what kind of professional you want to be.

There’s a version of M&A that trusts the data room.

There’s a version of procurement that trusts the RFP.

There’s a version of consulting that trusts the prep ritual.

There’s a version of agency life that trusts discovery decks.

There’s a version of product that trusts stakeholder interviews.

These versions are common. They follow the process. They tick the boxes. They do what’s expected. And they’re consistently surprised when reality doesn’t match the narrative they were given.

Then there’s another version.

The version that assumes every company presents a curated story. The version that looks for the gap between claims and experience before committing. The version that walks into meetings with something true that the other side can’t see from the inside.

This version doesn’t get surprised as often. Because they stopped mistaking narratives for diligence.

The Only Question

You’re going to learn what customers actually believe about the company you’re evaluating.

The acquisition target. The vendor on your shortlist. The client you’re pitching. The prospect you’re trying to win. The market you’re about to build for.

You’re going to learn.

The only question is when.

Before you sign?
Before you commit?
Before you pitch?
Before you build?

Or after — when the gap reveals itself on its own terms, on its own timeline, at your expense?

The gap exists.

It’s knowable.

The only variable is whether you see it in time to act on it.

Surface the gap between what companies claim and what customers actually believe. In minutes, not months.

→ monopoly.design