Devices in a category are compared on what they are actually built from rather than on published feature claims, so an entry question is answered on engineering terms.
Back to all proofs
From an unmapped adjacency to investment-grade diligence in four weeks
Client
Date
$1.5B+ global consumer products manufacturer
09/2026
The challenge
A $1.5B+ global consumer products manufacturer was weighing whether an adjacent device category was a market it should be in. The question sat with a small forward-looking product team who worked it by hand, so the category could be read to the depth one team had time for, and no further.
The solution
FifthRow set up a scouting and diligence sequence the team runs itself. A category goes in; a sized landscape, a component-level comparison of the devices in it, a candidate set sourced across industries with its patent lineage traced, and a staged investment memo on the survivors come out.
13,851
analyst-hours equivalent, 16 FTEs4 weeks
open category to investment memosScouting-to-diligence cycle4 weeks, from an open category
Device comparisonComponent level, on one standard
Candidate diligence44 stages behind each investment memo
Evidence base6,795 sources analysed
Analyst-hours equivalent13,851 hours saved; equivalent to 16 FTEs
An entry question cannot be answered before the category is described. The sequence opens by sizing the category, splitting it into the segments that behave differently, and establishing who already holds it.
Core Activities
- Sized the category and pulled the growth data behind the number
- Split it into segments that buy and behave differently from one another
- Profiled the incumbents on strategy, products and financial position
- Read where the category is heading, not only where it stands
- Returned one structured landscape rather than a folder of reading
The Results
A sized, segmented picture of the category with the incumbents placed inside it, produced as a single evidenced read that the rest of the sequence is built on rather than as a set of separate briefs.
1,271
analyst-hours equivalent, one sector readA landscape says who is in a category. It does not say what the products are actually made of, which is the level a manufacturer has to answer an entry question at. This stage takes the devices apart on paper.
Core Activities
- Mapped the devices in the category and their published specifications
- Broke each one down to component level rather than to feature claims
- Compared power source, sensing approach and form factor across the set
- Held one specification standard, so devices can be set side by side
- Re-ran the comparison as the device set was widened
The Results
A component-level comparison of the devices in the category, built to one standard, which turns a market question into an engineering one the team could actually answer.
846
analyst-hours equivalent, device-level comparisonThe companies worth looking at are rarely the ones already on the list. This stage goes looking across adjacent industries, then checks what each candidate actually owns.
Core Activities
- Sourced candidate companies across adjacent industries, not just the known set
- Profiled each on its technology, its team and its operating capacity
- Traced the lineage of a candidate's inventions back through its filings
- Positioned each patent portfolio against the rest of the field, with trademarks mapped
- Tracked what a candidate had recently launched, hired for and announced
The Results
A candidate set found outside the team's existing map, each company carrying a technology profile and a checked account of what it owns, so a shortlist rests on evidence rather than on who was already known.
1,266
analyst-hours equivalent, patent and IP mappingA shortlist is only worth as much as the work behind the names on it. Each survivor was put through the same staged memo, so candidates could be compared on how they were assessed as well as on what came back.
Core Activities
- Rebuilt each candidate's business model and route to market from evidence
- Sized the market behind the candidate and modelled the growth case against it
- Worked customer lifetime value, pricing position and unit economics
- Mapped risk exposure, capital requirements and exit pathways
- Assessed leadership, operating capacity and the hiring gap ahead
The Results
Investment memos produced in-house, to the same staged standard for every candidate, so the team put a decision-ready view in front of its own leadership rather than a recommendation to go and commission one.
44 stages
of analysis behind one investment memoWhat it proved
An open category became a sized landscape, a component-level comparison of the devices inside it, a candidate set sourced across adjacent industries with each company's patent lineage traced, and staged investment memos on the survivors. The whole sequence ran inside four weeks. Across the engagement that is 152 studies over 424 analysis steps, with 3,508 research questions answered from sources.
The team came out holding an evidenced answer to an entry question it had previously been able to approach only as far as its own reading capacity allowed, and a method that starts the next adjacency from a working process rather than a blank page. Across those 152 runs the platform records 13,851 analyst-hours saved, the equivalent of 16 full-time analysts.
Results
| Metric | Benchmark | Result | Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Category landscape | The team's own manual desk research | One structured sector read | Category read in one pass |
| Candidate sourcing | The companies the team already knew of | Sourcing across adjacent industries | Candidates found outside the known set |
| Diligence per candidate | Assembled by hand, one candidate at a time | 44 staged analyses per memo | Same depth on every candidate |
| Analyst-hours saved | A small team researching by hand | 13,851 hours across 152 runs | Equivalent of adding 16 full-time analysts |
Candidates surface from adjacent industries rather than from the list a team already holds, so scouting is not bounded by who the team happens to have met.
A candidate's inventions are traced back through its filings, so a technology claim is checked against the record rather than accepted from a pitch.
Every candidate runs through the same staged analysis, so a shortlist is defensible on how it was built as well as on what it contains.
Investment-grade write-ups come from the team that asked the question, so the work happens before a decision rather than after one has already been taken.
The sequence from category to candidate to memo stays in place as a method, so a second adjacency starts from a working process rather than a blank brief.
The intelligence function six business areas never had to staff
Client
$30B+ global electrification and automation group
Date
08/2026
596,505
analyst-hours equivalent, 150 FTEsFrom one-off research requests to a standing new-business intelligence practice
Client
$500M+ global speciality chemicals manufacturer
Date
08/2026
382,406
analyst-hours equivalent, 155 FTEsFor Enterprises
ProofSee all
From a standing start to an AI venture serving small businesses
From 72 patents to 4 commercialisation-ready technologies
Cutting a four-month research cycle to six weeks across five validation workstreams
From a weekly newsletter to a self-running innovation radar
A full year's validated-concept target, met in the first quarter
A utility innovation lab that answers its own questions in a day
Finding the next high-growth US metro in five days
FifthRow – The Agentic Consultancy
Copyright 2026 FifthRow Inc., Privacy policy