Ten questions that test whether a market entry rests on evidence from the target market or on assumptions imported from home, before the investment becomes irreversible.
Score the specific market you intend to enter, with the entry model currently on the table. The questions and scoring never change, and nothing about your plans is stored, transmitted or analysed.
Last reviewed 3 July 2026 · Free and ungated
Entry assumptions are cheapest to test from headquarters, before the first local commitment. Selected senior operators from the Global Board who know your target market can pressure-test the plan confidentially while the spend is still reversible.
Bring independent operator perspectives into this decisionAnswer for the specific target market and entry model, not for your international ambitions in general.
On these answers, the market entry is still an idea being socialised rather than a plan being executed. Evidence, channels and funding are all provisional, which is fine at exploration stage and dangerous the moment someone attaches a launch date.
The strategic logic is taking shape, but the case still rests on assumptions imported from your home market: about customers, pricing, or how incumbents will respond. Entries fail in this band when internal enthusiasm is mistaken for market evidence.
Most of the entry conditions are in place, and the gaps are identifiable rather than systemic. The risk at this stage is sequencing: committing to launch mechanics before the last unproven elements, often channel or operating model, are actually secured.
Evidence, alignment and funding are in place to a degree most market entries never reach. The characteristic failure at this level is not preparation but rigidity: well-resourced entries can persist too long with a plan the market has already answered.
Most failed entries were lost before the first local invoice was raised. The pattern repeats: the market was sized from reports rather than customers, the pricing was transplanted rather than tested, and the incumbent response was treated as a footnote when it should have been a scenario. This scorecard exists to catch that pattern while the plan is still cheap to change.
The score is only useful if the answers describe the entry as it is, not as the investment paper presents it. The most commonly inflated answers are competitor understanding, where knowing the names passes for knowing the behaviour, and leadership alignment, where polite enthusiasm in a steering meeting is scored as commitment. If two people would answer a question differently, that disagreement is itself a finding.
Ten questions, each with three fixed answers at 0, 5 or 10 points, totalled and normalised to 100. The four bands describe stages of preparedness rather than a verdict on the opportunity: a genuinely attractive market can score as early exploration simply because the work has not been done yet.
Yes, with one adjustment: the acquired business answers some questions for you, such as channel access and local operating model, but customer understanding and leadership alignment remain yours to earn. Score those honestly rather than inheriting them.
It proves the market can sustain them, with their cost base, relationships and timing. Entry economics for a newcomer are different, which is why the competitor understanding question asks how incumbents respond to entrants, not whether they exist.
The score is a preparedness measure, not an approval threshold. A disciplined team can commit at directionally prepared with explicit gates; an undisciplined one can fail from strong readiness. What the bands tell you is what kind of work remains.