Two Reports Disagree About Your Market Size. Which Number Reaches the Deck?

Why the numbers never match

Conflicting market sizes are normal, not a scandal. One report counts global revenue including hardware; the other counts software only, in one region, at last year's exchange rate. Both authors were careful inside their own definitions. Trouble starts when a slide strips the definition off and leaves a bare number competing with another bare number.

Reconciliation means rebuilding the figures far enough to see why they differ. Inquoria may describe candidate workflows and sample outputs from the sources you supply. Coverage and interpretation require expert confirmation, and no claim of accurate market sizing is made anywhere in this workflow.

What the reconciliation needs

Both reports, ideally with their methodology sections, plus a note of who published each and when. The methodology pages matter more than the headline numbers; the difference lives there.

Your own scope definition, written down before comparing. Without a fixed boundary, you cannot even say which report is closer to the question you actually need answered.

Step 1: Fix your own definition first

Write exactly what you need measured: segment, region, revenue type, year. Comparisons fail when the two reports are answering slightly different questions and you hoped one of them was answering yours.

Step 2: Extract each report's method and definitions

For both sources, record how the figure was produced: what counted as the market, which geographies, which year, what growth model. Enter these as cited observations so the comparison happens against text, not memory.

Step 3: Explain the gap explicitly

Line the definitions against each other and name what accounts for the distance: scope, vintage, currency, counting rule. When the gap fully explains itself, neither number is wrong; they are answers to different questions, and your job becomes picking the closer one or adjusting it.

Step 4: Publish a range with its reasoning attached

Present the reconciled figure as a range whose ends cite their sources, with the definitional adjustments shown. Add what would change your mind — a better source, a changed definition. Ranges with visible reasoning survive diligence; single confident numbers attract the diligence.

Knowing the reconciliation is sound

Someone reading your slide cold should be able to trace the chosen range to both source methods without asking you anything. The definitional differences are named, the adjustment logic is visible, and the weakest assumption is admitted on the same page as the number. If any part of that chain lives only in your head, the work is not done.

Limits of the reconciliation

Each important statement needs a source and a clear distinction between fact and estimate. Coverage, source quality, estimates, market sizes, and recommendations require expert verification. Inquoria may describe candidate workflows and sample outputs from the materials you supply.

A reconciled range is still an estimate, not ground truth. Do not present it as verified market sizing, do not imply endorsement from either original publisher, and remember both underlying reports age.

How Inquoria supports the comparison

Inquoria keeps both source records, their extracted methods, and your scope definition in one workspace, so the comparison produces citable rows rather than a paragraph of recollection. Ask it to hold the definitional diff beside the numbers and to carry the final range into the report draft with its reasoning.

Choosing which figure to trust remains a judgment call, and a well-formed one needs the sources' actual text. The desk organizes that material; it does not referee between publishers.