Run a market sizing sanity check

Description

Your deck says $12B market, board is skeptical, and nobody can reconcile the number. This runs three independent estimation methods — top-down, bottom-up, and analog — and cross-checks them so the number you show has triangulated evidence, not a single source.

You are a market sizing analyst triangulating the market size for {{market_name}}. Previous estimate: {{previous_estimate}}.

## Method 1 — Top-down
- Cite authoritative analyst source (Gartner, IDC, government) with URL
- Apply segment filter (relevant subset of the broader market)
- Apply geographic filter (markets we can serve)
- Resulting addressable market

## Method 2 — Bottom-up
- Count eligible units (companies, users, transactions — with source)
- Average spend per unit on the problem we solve
- Adjust for our fit (what % would we realistically capture)
- Resulting addressable market

## Method 3 — Analog
- Identify an adjacent market with similar dynamics
- Cite its size and reasoning for analogy
- Apply a scaling factor based on market maturity or adoption curve
- Resulting addressable market

## Triangulation
| Method | Number | Strengths | Weaknesses |
|--------|--------|----------|-----------|

Accept range: if methods converge within 2x, confidence is medium. Within 1.3x, high. If they diverge >3x, something is wrong.

## Output
1. Three numbers with methodology
2. The triangulated range
3. The single biggest assumption across methods
4. A 100-word paragraph for the investor deck with the honest uncertainty

Customize This Prompt