Source ID,Exact claim or data point,Original organisation,Source title,Direct URL,Exact location in source,Publication date,Data period,Sample size,Population,Numerator / denominator / metric,Methodology,Limitations and bias,Evidence transparency (0-6),Recommended IVRIS use,Verified live
S01,"The buying centre includes all organisation members involved in a purchase. Roles named: users, influencers, deciders, buyers and gatekeepers.",Webster & Wind,A General Model for Understanding Organizational Buying Behavior,https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/7215_A_General_Model_for_Understanding.pdf,"Journal of Marketing 36(2), pp. 12-19; buying-centre roles",April 1972,"Conceptual paper, no data-collection period",No empirical sample,General organisational purchasing,"N/A - definitions and propositions, not a measured outcome",Conceptual synthesis of organisational buying literature,"Historical model; roles overlap; does not validate any relationship score",3,Direct definition input for decision roles,"Yes - 2026-07-24 (PDF served, 545 KB)"
S02,"Tie strength combines time, emotional intensity, intimacy and reciprocal services; weak ties bridge separated social circles.",Mark S. Granovetter,The Strength of Weak Ties,https://www.jstor.org/stable/2776392,"American Journal of Sociology 78(6), p. 1361 definition",May 1973,No single B2B data period,Not a B2B sales sample,Social networks and information diffusion,N/A - conceptual dimensions are not calibrated B2B weights,Social-network theory and synthesis,Emotional intensity and intimacy must not be inferred in enterprise sales. Does not equate communication volume with trust.,4,"Contextual definition; adapt recency and reciprocity only",Not re-fetched - paywalled index
S03,"Tie strength is multidimensional. Closeness or intensity was the most useful indicator; frequency and duration presented measurement difficulties.",Marsden & Campbell,Measuring Tie Strength,https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270978604_Measuring_Tie_Strength,"Social Forces 63(2), pp. 482-501",December 1984,Surveys preceded publication; field dates vary by dataset,"Detroit: 1,013 respondents, up to 3,039 relationships. Aurora: 496 adults, up to 1,488 ties.",Historical friendship networks in the US and Germany,Respondents named up to three close friends; indicators compared against a latent tie-strength construct,Comparative measurement analysis across three cross-sectional surveys,Not representative of modern B2B stakeholders; self-report; closeness cannot be inferred from CRM activity,6,"Direct methodological boundary: activity count alone is not relationship strength",Not re-fetched - third-party mirror
S04,"Degree reflects activity, betweenness potential control, closeness independence. Network centralisation can be normalised.",Linton C. Freeman,Centrality in Social Networks: Conceptual Clarification,https://www.bebr.ufl.edu/sites/default/files/Centrality%20in%20Social%20Networks.pdf,"Social Networks 1, pp. 215-239",1978/1979,Conceptual and mathematical paper,No empirical B2B sample,General graph theory and social-network analysis,Formal definitions; no sales start or end event,Conceptual clarification and mathematical derivation,A seller map is partial. True centrality cannot be claimed when edges are missing or inferred.,3,Terminology input for internal connectivity,Not re-fetched
S05,"Structural position in workflow, communication and friendship networks was associated with perceived influence and promotion.",Daniel J. Brass,Being in the Right Place: A Structural Analysis of Individual Influence in an Organization,https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234021382_Being_in_the_Right_Place,"Administrative Science Quarterly 29(4), pp. 518-539",December 1984,Fieldwork preceded publication; exact dates not prominent,"140 full-time nonsupervisory employees, 87.5% response; supervisors and ~90% of managers also participated",One US newspaper-publishing company,Network nominations and perceived influence; no B2B deal outcome,"Questionnaires, network name generators, observation and interviews",Single-organisation selection and historical context; association does not justify inferring influence from title,5,Contextual evidence that informal structural position carries influence,Not re-fetched - third-party mirror
S06,Trust and commitment are latent constructs measured with multi-item scales.,Morgan & Hunt,The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing,https://eli.johogo.com/Class/Morgan.pdf,"Journal of Marketing 58, pp. 20-38",July 1994,Cross-sectional survey; exact field dates not highlighted,204 US National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association members; 14.6% response,US independent tire-retailing channel relationships,Survey-scale relationships among trust and commitment; not map adoption versus win/loss,"Self-administered questionnaire, scale development, structural modelling",Low response; one industry; historical and self-reported. Does not permit trust inference from emails or meetings.,5,"Direct boundary: use trust-indicating behaviours, not a psychological trust score",Not re-fetched
S07,"Trust influenced anticipated future interaction. After controlling prior experience and supplier performance, trust did not affect current supplier selection.",Doney & Cannon,An Examination of the Nature of Trust in Buyer-Seller Relationships,https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/002224299706100203,Official abstract; full methods paywalled,April 1997,Not available in the public abstract,More than 200 purchasing managers,Organisational purchasing,Current supplier selection and anticipated future interaction; cohort denominators not public,Empirical buyer-seller trust study; detailed method inaccessible,Paywall prevents full verification. Cautions against relationship quality as a direct current-purchase predictor.,3,Contradiction input; use only accessible abstract wording,Not re-fetched - paywalled
S08,"Meta-analysis of roughly 38,000 relationships across 94 studies; relationship-marketing effects vary by context.",Palmatier et al.,Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of Relationship Marketing: A Meta-Analysis,https://www.ama.org/2019/01/15/factors-influencing-the-effectiveness-of-relationship-marketing-a-meta-analysis/,"AMA summary; full paper Journal of Marketing 70(4), pp. 136-153",October 2006,Underlying studies span earlier periods,"~38,000 relationships in 94 studies",Heterogeneous populations and industries,Multiple constructs; no single compatible numerator or denominator,Meta-analysis; detailed coding in the paywalled article,Heterogeneity and coding choices. Cannot validate a specific sales map or score.,4,Context only; prohibited as causal proof for relationship mapping,Not re-fetched
S09,"HHI is calculated by squaring the market share of each firm and summing the results. Example: 30² + 30² + 20² + 20² = 2,600. Maximum 10,000 for a single firm.",US Department of Justice,Herfindahl-Hirschman Index,https://www.justice.gov/atr/herfindahl-hirschman-index,Definition and worked example,Live official page,Methodological description; not a dataset,N/A,Competition analysis; not sales accounts,Shares sum to one; HHI is the sum of squared shares,Official mathematical description,"Antitrust thresholds are context-specific and must not be imported into account risk. IVRIS adapts only the mathematical form.",4,Attribution for the sum-of-squared-shares form used in the Relationship Concentration Index,Bot-blocked 403 - content confirmed via search index; spot-check in browser
S10,Relationship intelligence surfaces relationship health and who-knows-whom suggestions from interaction data.,Microsoft Learn,Overview of Relationship intelligence,https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dynamics365/sales/ri-overview,Overview of relationship analytics and health,Live product documentation,Ongoing tenant data,No research sample,Dynamics 365 Sales Premium customers,Product calculations; not a study outcome,First-party technical documentation,"Activity-based health is an operational proxy, not proof of influence, support or trust",4,Direct field and automation example,Yes - 2026-07-24 (URL corrected from dossier)
S11,"Relationship health looks at activity, recency, engagement and sentiment. Who Knows Whom basic insights use only frequency; enhanced insights use frequency and recency. An administrator can influence the health score by changing activity-type weights and expected communication levels.",Microsoft Learn,Relationship intelligence FAQs,https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dynamics365/sales/faq-relationship-intelligence,Relationship health and Who Knows Whom sections,Page date 7 July 2026,Ongoing tenant data,No research sample,Dynamics 365 Sales implementations,No win/loss endpoint; output is a configurable platform score,First-party FAQ describing product logic,Configuration changes comparability. Frequency and recency remain activity evidence.,5,"Direct evidence that a platform relationship score is a configurable local setting",Yes - 2026-07-24 (URL corrected from dossier)
S12,"The overall relationship health score is calculated by weighting activities by type and normalised to 0-100: good 60-100, fair 40-59, poor 0-39. Administrators can change a type's contribution by up to 50 percent and set expected contact frequency. Email duration is estimated at 2.5 minutes to read and 5 minutes to write. Appointment time is multiplied by the number of team members present.",Microsoft Learn,Relationship analytics KPI calculations,https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dynamics365/sales/relationship-analytics-kpi-calculations,"Compute the relationship health and health trend; duration source table",Page date 10 September 2025; updated 28 January 2026,Ongoing tenant data,No research sample,Dynamics 365 Sales,KPI calculation rules; not outcome research,First-party technical documentation,Assumptions and configuration mean scores cannot be compared across organisations as benchmarks,5,Direct evidence that a 0-100 relationship score encodes disclosed assumptions,Yes - 2026-07-24 (URL corrected from dossier)
S13,"Opportunity contact roles specify the part that each contact plays in a deal.",Salesforce,Opportunity Contact Roles,https://help.salesforce.com/s/articleView?id=sales.sales_core_opp_contact_roles.htm&language=en_US&type=5,Definition of opportunity contact roles,Live documentation,N/A,No study sample,Salesforce opportunity records,N/A,First-party product documentation,"A role association is not a relationship graph. It does not store internal influence edges, access quality or evidence confidence.",4,Direct comparison input for the contact-role list column,Yes - 2026-07-24
S14,"Relationship Map centralises stakeholder roles, influence indicators, team sharing and staleness alerts. Help documentation lists Decision Maker, Champion, Evaluator, Procurement and Influencer.",LinkedIn Sales Solutions,Meet Relationship Map: Visualize and Track Any Buying Committee,https://www.linkedin.com/business/sales/blog/product-updates/relationship-map-sales-navigator-what-it-is-and-how-to-use-it,Product overview; stakeholder roles and sharing features,8 November 2023,N/A,No research sample,Sales Navigator users and mapped accounts,N/A,First-party product documentation and marketing,Does not publicly validate a relationship-strength score or a causal outcome,4,Field taxonomy and current SERP context,Yes - 2026-07-24
S15,"Outreach supports reporting lines, stakeholder relationships, influence and sentiment fields across acquisition, retention and expansion.",Outreach,Account Planning release notes,https://support.outreach.io/hc/en-us/articles/26107267665051-Outreach-Account-Planning-Release-Notes,"Relationship map, stakeholder links, influence and sentiment sections",Feature release documentation from May 2024,N/A,No research sample,Outreach account-planning product,N/A,First-party technical documentation,Field availability does not establish objective validity of sentiment or influence labels,4,Post-sale and data-model context; not outcome evidence,Not re-fetched
S16,"The typical buying decision now includes 13 internal stakeholders and nine external influencers. Procurement professionals are decision-makers in 53% of business buying cycles.",Forrester,"The State Of Business Buying, 2026",https://www.forrester.com/press-newsroom/forrester-2026-the-state-of-business-buying/,Press-release figures on influencers and procurement,21 January 2026,Not disclosed on the accessible press page,Not disclosed on the press page,Business buying,Numerators and denominators not disclosed publicly,First-party research announcement; full methodology behind the report,"Do not sum 13 and 9 into a committee of 22. Do not average with Gartner or Foundry counts.",2,Contextual example only with full caveat,Yes - 2026-07-24 (URL corrected from dossier)
S17,"74% of B2B buyer teams demonstrate unhealthy conflict. Buying groups range from five to 16 people across as many as four functions. Groups that reach consensus are 2.5 times more likely to report a high-quality deal.",Gartner,Gartner Sales Survey Finds 74% of B2B Buyer Teams Demonstrate Unhealthy Conflict During The Decision Process,https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-05-07-gartner-sales-survey-finds-74-percent-of-b2b-buyer-teams-demonstrate-unhealthy-conflict-during-the-decision-process,Survey method and headline findings,7 May 2025,Fielded August-September 2024,632 B2B buyers,B2B buying groups; geography and industry distributions not fully disclosed,"Denominator 632 respondents. Numerator for 74% not separately disclosed.",Buyer survey summarised in a first-party press release,"Self-report and limited public sample detail. Supports complexity, not map causality.",5,Direct statistic with precise scope,Bot-blocked 403 - content confirmed via search index and in use on IVRIS article 132
S18,"An average of 28 members in the 2024 buying committee, up from 25 in 2023 and 20 in 2022, with a 6.1-month purchase journey. The 2025 edition reports 26 influencers.",Foundry,Role & Influence of the Technology Decision-Maker,https://foundryco.com/news/2024-role-and-influence-study-finds-increasing-tech-purchase-complexity/,Study announcement and methodology paragraph,20 June 2024 (2024 edition); 2025 edition live at https://foundryco.com/research/role-and-influence/,Exact field dates not stated on the summary page,938 respondents,"Foundry B2B brand audiences (CIO, Computerworld, CSO, InfoWorld, Network World) involved in IT and security purchases",Average committee size and journey duration; no intervention or map endpoint,30-question online survey across multiple industries and countries,Technology-specific and audience-selection bias. Do not generalise to all B2B or average with other studies.,5,"Direct statistic with enterprise-technology scope; also the clearest public example of a figure that moves between editions",Yes - 2026-07-24 (URL corrected from dossier - original 404s)
S21,"More than 5,000 opportunities across multiple B2B SaaS companies. Multithreaded opportunities showed a five-times higher win rate and 57% larger deal size; 70% of opportunities had a single point of contact.",UserGems,How much is multithreading worth to your pipeline and revenue?,https://www.usergems.com/blog/how-much-is-multithreading-worth-to-your-pipeline-and-revenue,Headline results,Published 8 August 2023; updated 18 March 2026,Not disclosed,"More than 5,000 opportunities; firm count and cohort sizes undisclosed",B2B SaaS; geography and company-size mix undisclosed,"Multithread definition, cohort denominators and absolute win rates not disclosed",Vendor observational analysis with limited public methodology,"Large effect is vulnerable to definition and selection bias. Not causal. Headline escalates to 8x when combined with the vendor's own product signal.",3,Conditional example only; never a universal benchmark,Yes - 2026-07-24
S22,"Clari processed nearly 300 million emails and 40 million meetings and found that on average 50-70% of the people sales reps communicate with do not exist as contacts in CRM.",Clari,How Marketers Can De-Risk Single-Threaded Deals,https://www.clari.com/blog/how-marketers-can-de-risk-single-threaded-deals/,Opening description of analysed communication volume,8 September 2019,Refers to processing in the prior year,"Nearly 300 million emails and 40 million meetings; number of organisations, people and opportunities undisclosed",Clari customer activity data,Denominator not precisely specified: people in communication activity versus CRM contact records. No outcome endpoint.,Vendor operational-data analysis with limited public inclusion rules,"Identity matching and tenant selection unclear. Useful for CRM completeness, not relationship strength or deal causality. Now six years old.",3,Contextual example for CRM coverage gaps,Yes - 2026-07-24