# Moat scorecard · [Product] · [Year] Scoring: 0 = none, 1 = claimed but unproven, 2 = real with evidence, 3 = real, evidenced and hard to copy. Any score above 1 needs a source. | Moat source | Score (0 to 3) | Evidence (source) | This year: widened / stable / narrowed | What would erase it | Leading indicator to watch | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | Proprietary data (exclusive, refreshed by use, in the hard tail) | | | | | | | Proprietary context (what the agent can know that rivals can't) | | | | | | | Outcome labels (which action actually worked) | | | | | | | Workflow depth / system of record or action | | | | | | | Switching costs (configuration, approvals, compliance evidence) | | | | | | | Distribution and channel (who owns the user relationship) | | | | | | | Trust and brand | | | | | | | Ecosystem (partners, connectors, complements) | | | | | | | Scale economics (including inference cost per outcome) | | | | | | | Counter-positioning (business model rivals won't copy) | | | | | | | Process power (eval and learning loop speed) | | | | | | | Model access | 0 | Rivals can buy the same models | | | Price and quality of alternative models | ## Annual test - Widened this year: - Narrowed this year: - Biggest surprise: ## Implications - Stop defending: - Start building: - Pricing and margin effect: