Use this worksheet to decide what evidence your team needs before choosing between two tools. The aim is a reproducible decision record, not a universal verdict.
Define the workflow before comparing tools
- Name the audience, channel, asset type, and approval path for the work you actually need to complete.
- Choose rights-cleared representative inputs that may be used in both evaluation accounts.
- Write down required outputs and review criteria before seeing either result.
- Record account plan, region, permissions, and observation date because access can differ.
Build an evidence ledger
| Decision area | Question to investigate | Acceptable evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Inputs | Can the representative source material be used as intended? | A recorded run using permitted test material in the evaluated account |
| Output | Does the result meet the pre-agreed review criteria? | The original output file plus a reviewer checklist |
| Revision | What work is needed after the first result? | A step log that includes work inside and outside the tool |
| Export | Does the delivered file meet the intended destination requirements? | Inspection of the exported file against current destination guidance |
| Governance | Are asset, likeness, voice, and usage terms acceptable for this use? | Current terms and written approval from the responsible reviewer |
| Commercial fit | What would the evaluated workflow cost for this team? | A dated account-specific quote or checkout view reviewed by the buyer |
Run a matched evaluation
- Use the same approved brief and source assets in both accounts where the products allow it.
- Capture the exact steps, settings, manual work, output, and error state for each run.
- Keep missing access or unavailable evidence marked as not evidenced rather than treating it as a failure.
- Ask the same production, legal, and buying reviewers to assess both records.
- Make a decision only for the documented workflow, plan, and observation window.
Report observations without overclaiming
| Evidence-led wording | Wording to avoid |
|---|---|
| In the observed account and workflow, the reviewer recorded... | This product always performs this way. |
| This step required additional work in the documented run. | This product is slower or worse for every team. |
| The current commercial detail was verified from this dated source. | This is the cheapest option. |
Stop conditions
Do not publish a ranking or switching recommendation when test access, representative inputs, usage permission, comparable account scope, or a named reviewer is missing. Preserve the gap in the decision record instead.
For a wider shortlist, use the category evaluation framework and apply the same evidence standard to every candidate.
Open the shortlist framework