Candor's promise is cases analysts can trust: its own principles say "Analysts need to trust alerts". The sample case on /platform shows a product contractor's event row as "Accessed personal email: mail.qq.com 21x", while the AI case summary above it says "25 times throughout March". Every CISO evaluating an AI investigator looks for exactly this kind of mismatch between evidence and narrative. On the homepage, the Gartner FAQ reads "What Gartner catagories that Candor fall into?" and answers with "Candor is best positioned for your DLP and IRM needs", which doesn't name a category.
First action
Change "21x" or "25 times" so the two match, and redeploy /platform.
How to measure it
Platform-to-demo conversion
- Now
- –
- Target
- +15%
- By
- 60 days
Steps
Fix the count
Make the event row and the AI summary for the contractor case show the same number.
Senior Full-Stack Engineer 1 hour
Audit every sample
Check each Action Center case and timeline for counts, dates, roles and sources that don't match the summary.
Co-founder & CEO half a day
One data source
Generate the demo summaries and event rows from a single fixture so they can't drift apart.
Senior Full-Stack Engineer 1 day
Link claims to evidence
Make each summary sentence highlight its supporting event rows on hover or click.
Full-Stack Engineer, Investigations 2 days
Rewrite the Gartner FAQ
Fix the typo and name the categories plainly, or drop the question.
Co-founder & CEO 1 hour
Proofread the rest
Read every page for typos and unsupported claims before each release.
Co-founder & CEO 2 hours
Use it in demos
Open demos by clicking a summary sentence back to its evidence.
Co-founder & CEO ongoing
Measure
Compare platform-page demo bookings for the month before and after.
Co-founder & CTO monthly
Why it works
Fix the number today, then audit every sample case and FAQ for the same kind of slip. Go further and turn the demo into proof: make each sentence in the AI summary link to the event rows behind it (the platform already shows an evidence chain of "6 events, 4 sources, 3 attachments"). Generate the demo summary and the event rows from one data file so they can't drift apart again. Rewrite the Gartner FAQ to name the actual categories in plain words (data loss prevention and insider risk management), or remove it. Then use "every sentence in a Candor case links to its evidence" as a line in demos.
Enterprise security buyers screen AI products for hallucinated or inconsistent output. A visible mismatch in the hero demo undercuts the "trustworthy cases" claim, and a demo that cites its evidence shows the opposite. Rivals publish precision claims (Nightfall "95% detection precision", Cyberhaven "~90% fewer false positives"), so Candor's demo itself has to carry the trust argument.
Ready to use
ChecklistDemo and FAQ proof pass
[ ] Contractor case: event count matches the AI summary [ ] Every sample case: counts, dates, roles and sources match [ ] Summaries and event rows come from one fixture [ ] Each summary sentence links to its evidence rows [ ] "Sample data" label on the Action Center [ ] Gartner FAQ: typo fixed and categories named, or removed [ ] Every page proofread before release
Risks and how to handle them
Visitors take demo data as real customer data
Keep a small "sample data" label on the Action Center.
Evidence links slow the page
Load the links after the first paint, as static data.
Evidence
- Your websitePlatform page (fetched twice on November 9, 2026): in the sample Action Center case for a product contractor, the event row reads "Accessed personal email: mail.qq.com 21x" while the AI case summary says the contractor accessed personal email "25 times throughout March". The page also shows plain-English policies, plain-English investigation questions across Microsoft 365 and Okta, automated investigation reports with an evidence chain ("6 events, 4 sources, 3 attachments"), and high-intent sources (Copilot chats, SharePoint searches, Outlook outbound email, ServiceNow requests) beside CrowdStrike, Okta, Palo Alto Networks and Workday.Source
- Your websiteBlog ("Field Notes"): five posts between June 5 and September 1, 2026, all by a co-founder, each ending with the Calendly link; no newsletter signup or related posts. "Shadow AI Broke the Way We Run DLP" says shadow AI "occasionally accounted for 60-70% of the DLP events" a team handled; "Why Insider Risk Needs to Be Reinvented" sets out seven principles, including "Analysts need to trust alerts" and "Value needs to come fast".Source
- Your websiteHomepage (checked November 9, 2026): headline "Stitch the story, stop insider risk. Data loss. Alert fatigue."; claims an "80% reduction in MTTI", "Detection on Day 1" and most organizations live within one week; a logo row (AMD, JPMorgan, NASA, Uber) introduced only by the words "Built by AI experts from"; an FAQ headed "What Gartner catagories that Candor fall into?" answered "Candor is best positioned for your DLP and IRM needs."; SOC 2 Type II; customer data is not used for model training and stays in the customer's tenancy.Source
- Competitor researchNightfall homepage: controls data across "AI agents, MCP servers, endpoints, and SaaS"; "95% detection precision", "live in one working hour", "20x average ROI"; an ROI calculator, plans, customer stories, a G2 badge and a "View Trust Center" link in the header.Source