Evidence discipline for the three skills that make claims about competitors. Comparison pages and battle cards are claims a competitor's team, or a buyer, can check in a minute.
- competitors (2.0.1 → 2.1.0): new Evidence Discipline principle. "Not observed" is not "doesn't have": a feature missing from a pricing page gets "not listed (as of date)" or no row, and ✗ only when docs or a trial confirm it. Date competitor facts, treat one visit as a snapshot (no "hasn't changed" without dated history), state what changed but never guess why, and keep fact, interpretation, and recommendation separate. Ask instead of guessing when no competitor is named.
templates.mdgains a "not listed" table row; the competitor data template gainslast_verified+sources. - competitor-profiling (2.0.1 → 2.1.0): Facts Over Opinions now separates observed / inferred / implication, adds not-observed ≠ absent (including "no public pricing" ≠ free) and no-motive rules; Current Data notes a single scrape can't support "hasn't changed"; "where we're strong" requires customer, win/loss, or review evidence or is labeled a hypothesis.
- sales-enablement (2.0.1 → 2.1.0): new Claims Reps Can Defend principle. "Why we win" needs win/loss, CRM, call, or customer evidence; without it, advantages are hypotheses with the evidence that would confirm them. Competitor claims follow the competitors evidence rules, and competitive docs say where you lose.
- One new eval per skill. Closes #602.