One of the eleven dimensions behind the Cyborg Score (1-10).
Written by AskCyborg Research. Last reviewed 2026-09-03.
Growth that has already happened, the size of what is realistically addressable, and the specific route from where the company is to where it says it is going.
Each dimension is argued before it is scored. A panel of AI analysts takes opposing positions on the material claims in that dimension — the case for, the case against, and the risks neither side raised first — and each claim is challenged, defended, and either survives or is rewritten. The dimension score reflects what survived, weighted by the confidence rating attached to the surviving evidence. The overall Cyborg Score is the synthesis across all eleven, so a single strong dimension does not carry a company and a single weak one does not sink it. The same company put through the same framework produces the same score.
The score rises when historical growth is measured rather than characterised and when the next expansion is a named, resourced move. It falls on a total-addressable-market figure standing in for a plan, on growth rates quoted from a base small enough to make any number impressive, and on expansion into a market the company has shown no capability in.
Every material claim carries a confidence rating, and the rating is about evidence, not about tone. High confidence means the claim is supported by disclosed, checkable material and survived a challenge from the opposing analyst. Medium means it held up but rests on partial or single-source evidence, and the caveat travels with it. Low means the claim is directionally supported and could not be confirmed — it is kept because omitting it would be a different kind of dishonesty, and it is labelled so it is never read as settled. A dimension scored on low-confidence evidence gets a middling score rather than a strong one: thin evidence is scored as thin evidence, not as bad news and not as good news.
Addressable-market figures are the most inflated number in company material, and this dimension treats an unsourced one as no evidence at all. That penalises companies in genuinely new categories, where no credible market figure exists yet for anyone.
A 3 reads like: a large addressable market is quoted, growth is given as a percentage with no base, and the stated expansion is into a segment with a different buyer and a different sales motion. The route was never described.
This example is generic and describes no real company. It is a worked illustration of the reasoning, not a rating of anyone.