Proof Points Bank

What it is

The Proof Points Bank is a centralised library where you collect, categorise, and verify all the evidence that supports your messaging claims. Instead of scattered spreadsheets or sporadic notes, you create a searchable, organised resource that anyone on your team can access and draw from.

Think of it as an evidence fact-check before you communicate anything publicly. When your marketing team claims you’re “industry leading,” they pull from the Proof Points Bank to find the analyst ranking that backs it up. When a salesperson says “reduces costs by 40%,” they cite a specific case study. When a journalist asks for third-party validation, you open your bank and deliver.

This is particularly important because unverified claims destroy credibility faster than admitting you don’t have evidence. A well-organised Proof Points Bank prevents that.

When to use it

Use the Proof Points Bank when:

• You’re building a comprehensive messaging strategy that requires substantiation
• Multiple teams (sales, marketing, comms) need consistent access to evidence
• You regularly face scrutiny about your claims (B2B, regulated industries, public interest)
• You’re applying for awards or certifications that require documented evidence
• You want to prevent “claimed fact” from becoming “stated fact” without verification

Don’t use the Proof Points Bank when:

• You’re creating a simple one-off communication with limited claims
• You need quick tactical talking points (use Key Messages Grid instead)
• You’re building counter-narratives (use Myth vs Fact Sheet)
• You don’t yet have much evidence (gather it first, then use this template)

Inputs needed

Before you start:

• All internal data (sales metrics, customer satisfaction, growth rates, usage patterns)
• Customer testimonials, references, and case study permission
• Research studies, reports, whitepapers you’ve conducted or commissioned
• Awards, certifications, and regulatory approvals
• Media coverage, analyst recognition, industry rankings
• Competitive comparisons or independent evaluations
• Employee satisfaction, retention, or engagement metrics (if communicating about organisational culture)

---

The template

Proof Points Bank Master Registry

Create a spreadsheet or database with these columns:

Claim	Proof Point	Source Type	Verification Status	Date	Who Can Use	Notes	Alternative Evidence
[Claim]	[Specific evidence]	[Research/Data/Testimonial/Award]	[Verified/Pending/Conditional]	[Date gathered]	[Public/Internal/Embargoed]	[Additional context]	[Backup options]

Proof Point Categories

Research & Studies

• Independent research or industry reports
• Customer research or surveys
• ROI studies or impact analyses
• Academic or scientific validation

Customer Evidence

• Testimonials (with permission verification)
• Case studies (with metrics and business context)
• Customer references (willing to be named or anonymised)
• Net Promoter Score or satisfaction data

Third-Party Validation

• Analyst rankings or reports (Gartner, Forrester, etc.)
• Industry awards or recognition
• Certifications or regulatory approvals
• Media coverage or journalist statements

Internal Data

• Growth metrics (revenue, users, adoption)
• Retention and satisfaction metrics
• Operational efficiency data
• Employee metrics (if relevant to claims)

Competitive Evidence

• Market share data or positioning studies
• Independent benchmarking reports
• Feature comparisons or capability assessments
• Customer win/loss analysis

Proof Point Quality Assessment

For each proof point, evaluate:

• Specificity: Can you cite exact numbers, names, dates, or sources?
• Recency: Is the evidence current or dated? (May need to note when it was gathered)
• Credibility: Would a journalist, investor, or customer accept this source?
• Verifiability: Can someone independently verify this claim?
• Context: Is there important context (sample size, methodology, assumptions)?
• Permission: Do you have permission to use this publicly or is it confidential?

Proof Point Storage Template

Claim Being Supported: [Your specific claim]

Primary Proof Point: [The evidence that most directly supports this claim]

• Source: [Who provided or discovered this]
• Type: [Research / Data / Testimonial / Award / Other]
• Verification Status: [Verified / Needs Review / Conditional Use]
• Specifics: [Exact numbers, percentages, quotes, citations]
• Date: [When this was gathered or published]
• Expiration or Update Needed: [Does this need refreshing?]

Secondary Proof Points: [2-3 alternative pieces of evidence for this claim]

1. [Evidence] — [Source] — [Why this matters as backup]
2. [Evidence] — [Source] — [Why this matters as backup]
3. [Evidence] — [Source] — [Why this matters as backup]

Permission Level:

• Public / Media-ready
• Internal only
• Embargoed until [DATE]
• Customer permission required — [Contact name]

Caveats or Context: [Any important limitations, context, or nuance about this evidence]

How to Cite This: [Standard wording for how to reference this proof point in communications]

---

AI prompt

Base prompt

I'm building a Proof Points Bank to support our messaging claims.
I need your help organising and verifying evidence.

Here are the main claims we're making:
[LIST YOUR KEY CLAIMS]

Here's the evidence I have available:
- Research/studies: [WHAT YOU HAVE]
- Customer data: [METRICS, TESTIMONIALS, CASE STUDIES]
- Third-party validation: [AWARDS, RECOGNITION, ANALYST REPORTS]
- Internal data: [GROWTH, SATISFACTION, USAGE DATA]
- Media/competitive: [COVERAGE, COVERAGE, RANKINGS]

For each claim, please:
1. Identify the strongest single piece of evidence
2. Suggest 2-3 supporting pieces of evidence
3. Flag any gaps where we lack verification
4. Suggest language for how to cite each proof point
5. Note any caveats or context needed
6. Suggest additional evidence we should gather

Organise the output so our team can easily find proof points by claim.

Prompt variations

Variation 1: Award Submission

I'm preparing an award submission for [AWARD NAME].

The award criteria requires us to evidence:
[AWARD CRITERIA 1]
[AWARD CRITERIA 2]
[AWARD CRITERIA 3]

We have this evidence:
[YOUR EVIDENCE]

Build a Proof Points Bank that maps each award criterion to the
strongest evidence we have, and flag any gaps we need to address
before submission. Suggest how to present evidence most compellingly.

Variation 2: B2B Sales Enablement

I'm building a Proof Points Bank for our sales team to use in deals.

Common customer objections are:
- [Objection 1]
- [Objection 2]
- [Objection 3]

We have this evidence:
[YOUR CUSTOMER CASE STUDIES, ROI DATA, REFERENCES]

Build a Proof Points Bank organised by objection, with strong evidence
for each. Include language our sales team can use, and note which
customers are happy to be references.

Variation 3: Journalist Fact Sheet

We're preparing for media interest about [TOPIC/CLAIM].

Our main claims are:
[CLAIM 1]
[CLAIM 2]
[CLAIM 3]

Evidence we have:
[RESEARCH, THIRD-PARTY VALIDATION, DATA]

Build a Proof Points Bank that's journalist-ready: specific numbers,
credible sources, clear citations, with context and nuance. Include
what we know and what we don't yet know.

Variation 4: Brand Differentiation

We need to evidence why we're different from [COMPETITOR].

Our differentiators are:
[DIFFERENTIATOR 1]
[DIFFERENTIATOR 2]
[DIFFERENTIATOR 3]

Evidence we have:
[CUSTOMER FEEDBACK, PRODUCT DATA, MARKET ANALYSIS]

Build a Proof Points Bank that substantiates each differentiator with
customer data, market evidence, or competitive analysis. Avoid claims
we can't verify. Focus on what's genuinely different, not just better.

Variation 5: Impact/Outcome Documentation

We're documenting the impact of [PRODUCT/INITIATIVE/PROGRAM].

We've had [X] customers/users, and we're claiming:
- [Outcome 1] — have [EVIDENCE]
- [Outcome 2] — have [EVIDENCE]
- [Outcome 3] — have [EVIDENCE]

Build a Proof Points Bank that qualifies and quantifies our impact,
with customer evidence, metrics, and third-party validation where
available. Be honest about what we can prove vs. what we believe.

---

Human review checklist

• Can every major claim in your messaging be traced back to a specific proof point?
• Are proof points verifiable by someone outside your organisation?
• Have you included the source, date, and context for each proof point?
• Do you have permission to use all testimonials, case studies, and customer data publicly?
• Are there any “soft” claims (leader, pioneer, best-in-class) without hard evidence?
• Does the collection include recent evidence alongside older validation?
• Have you noted expiration dates for time-sensitive evidence?
• Are you over-reliant on one source or type of evidence?
• Would a skeptical audience (journalist, investor, regulator) accept this evidence?
• Is the bank organised in a way your team can actually access and use?

---

Example output

CLAIM: “We reduce processing time by an average of 40%”

Primary Proof Point: Acme Corp case study—implemented our system, measured processing time before/after, documented 38% reduction over 6 months. 18-month ROI: £450,000 saved in labour costs.

• Source: Case study interview + internal metrics
• Type: Customer case study
• Verification Status: Verified
• Date: Gathered Q3 2024
• Permission: Public (customer willing to be named)
• Contact: Sarah Chen, Acme Corp Operations

Secondary Proof Points:

1. Internal data from 87 active customers—median time reduction of 42% within first 6 months (verified in product analytics)
2. Gartner analyst report (Oct 2024)—independent testing showed 35-45% processing time reduction across use cases
3. NPS survey data—customers citing “faster processing” as top reason for satisfaction (cited by 73% of respondents)

Caveats:

• Results vary by use case; 40% is average, range is 25-55%
• Assumes proper implementation; training and setup required
• Initial 3-month ramp-up period before gains are realised

How to Cite: “Customers report an average 40% reduction in processing time, with one major enterprise documenting £450,000 in annual labour savings” (link to case study)

---

CLAIM: “Industry-leading platform”

Primary Proof Point: Gartner Magic Quadrant Leader 2025—positioned as Leader for three consecutive years; only platform meeting all “must-have” capabilities

Secondary Proof Points:

1. Forrester Wave Leader, 2024—rated highest in implementation speed and customer support
2. Customer testimonials—93% of customers cite “best-in-class” in satisfaction surveys
3. Market position—#1 adoption rate in our segment (IDC report, 2024)

Caveats:

• “Industry-leading” is specific to our category; we’re not claiming leadership outside this space
• Analyst rankings evaluate different criteria; other platforms lead in different areas

How to Cite: “Named Gartner Magic Quadrant Leader three years running, and rated highest by Forrester for implementation speed”

---

Related templates

• Message House — Use this Proof Points Bank as the foundation of your Message House
• Key Messages Grid — Draw proof points from the bank when adapting messages for different audiences
• Positioning Statement Generator — Ground positioning claims in verified proof points
• Executive Quote Pack — Use proof points to develop speaker statements with credibility
• FAQ Builder — Reference proof points in FAQ answers to back up claims

---

Tips for success

Build it before you need it. Don’t wait until a journalist asks for evidence or you’re in a sales crisis. Build your Proof Points Bank as a permanent resource that grows over time. Quarterly reviews and updates make it stronger.

Verify everything before it goes in. Your Proof Points Bank is only as credible as its evidence. If you’re not 100% sure about a data point, note it as “needs verification” and don’t use it in external communications until it’s confirmed.

Include the context, not just the number. “87% satisfaction” means different things depending on sample size, methodology, and who was surveyed. Include that context so people using your proof points don’t accidentally overstate the finding.

Document your sources obsessively. When a case study is from two years ago, that matters. When a statistic is from an independent analyst versus internal data, that matters. When a customer has specific use cases, that matters. Write all of it down.

Rotate and refresh regularly. Old evidence gets stale. Analyst reports expire. Case studies become dated. Build a process to refresh your Proof Points Bank quarterly, add new customer wins, and retire evidence that’s no longer current.

---

Common pitfalls

“Proof points” that aren’t actually proof. “We’re customer-focused” isn’t proof without evidence of what that means. “Leading innovation” isn’t proof without a ranking or concrete innovation to cite. Every proof point should be specific enough that someone could verify it.

Confusing internal assumptions with external evidence. Just because your team believes something is true doesn’t make it a proof point. “We have the best customer service” requires evidence (NPS, third-party review scores, customer testimonials) not conviction.

Permission problems that surface too late. You build messaging around a case study, then discover you never got permission to use it publicly. Document permissions upfront and get written confirmation before adding testimonials to your bank.

Over-relying on one evidence type. If all your proof points are internal data, you’re vulnerable to accusations of bias. If everything is customer testimonials, you’re vulnerable to accusations of cherry-picking. Mix sources to build credibility.

Failing to document limitations. If your survey had a 15% response rate, that’s important context. If results apply primarily to one use case or customer size, say so. Honesty about limitations builds more credibility than pretending they don’t exist.

---