Honest answer to your question: almost nobody verifies the destination independently, and the failure surfaces weeks later when a rep notices a deal that never existed. That means you are not selling monitoring to an ops team, you are selling recovered revenue to whoever owns the pipeline number, and that person pays far more than the ops person who believes their logs are fine. I would lead with a free one-time reconciliation that tells a prospect how many leads went missing last quarter, because a number with dollars attached sells this and a verification layer does not.
“Recovered revenue” is much closer to the business outcome than “better monitoring.” One thing we’re being careful about is not overclaiming what LeadProof can prove today. The current product is focused on forward looking verification through source and destination checkpoints rather than reconstructing historical failures.
But the reconciliation idea is interesting if a prospect has reliable historical source and CRM data. It could make the problem tangible before asking them to add another verification layer.
Which source-to-destination workflow would you test first for that reconciliation?
200 OK only tells me the request was accepted. I’d separate delivery, workflow completion, and the actual business outcome—otherwise the user still has to open the destination app to check.
Delivery, workflow completion and business outcome are not necessarily the same thing.
That’s why LeadProof’s destination checkpoint is intended to verify a meaningful expected outcome not simply whether another request returned successfully. The interesting part for us now is learning which destination event teams actually consider proof that the business workflow completed.
For the workflows you’ve seen, what would you consider the strongest final confirmation?
That’s exactly the question we’re testing now...LeadProof is not meant for every automation. A simple, low-impact workflow probably doesn’t justify another verification layer.
The likely fit is a revenue critical, multi-step handoff where one missing, late, duplicate, or invalid outcome can cost more than the effort of adding verification.
Existing logs can show that an automation ran but not always that the expected destination record actually arrived, arrived on time and was complete. We’ve built the verification layer. Now we’re working with real teams to understand how frequently these failures happen and when that added visibility becomes valuable.
What type of workflow would cross that threshold for you?
That’s a useful distinction. I’d be interested in continuing the conversation beyond the thread — would you be open to sharing the best email to reach you on?
Absolutely, Aryan. I’d be happy to continue the conversation. You can reach me at:hello.tynovate@gmail.com
I’d especially value your perspective on which workflows make the additional verification worthwhile.
Thanks! I’ve just sent it over.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts whenever you have a chance.
About
LeadProof exists because webhook delivery does not prove the intended outcome happened. It verifies that leads arrive on time, once, and with the required data.
9 Comments
That’s a really interesting way to frame it.
“Recovered revenue” is much closer to the business outcome than “better monitoring.” One thing we’re being careful about is not overclaiming what LeadProof can prove today. The current product is focused on forward looking verification through source and destination checkpoints rather than reconstructing historical failures.
But the reconciliation idea is interesting if a prospect has reliable historical source and CRM data. It could make the problem tangible before asking them to add another verification layer.
Which source-to-destination workflow would you test first for that reconciliation?
Agreed — that distinction is important.
Delivery, workflow completion and business outcome are not necessarily the same thing.
That’s why LeadProof’s destination checkpoint is intended to verify a meaningful expected outcome not simply whether another request returned successfully. The interesting part for us now is learning which destination event teams actually consider proof that the business workflow completed.
For the workflows you’ve seen, what would you consider the strongest final confirmation?
The distinction between “workflow succeeded” and “business outcome happened” is interesting.
Curious whether teams see enough real failures here to justify adding another verification layer to workflows they already consider reliable.
That’s exactly the question we’re testing now...LeadProof is not meant for every automation. A simple, low-impact workflow probably doesn’t justify another verification layer.
The likely fit is a revenue critical, multi-step handoff where one missing, late, duplicate, or invalid outcome can cost more than the effort of adding verification.
Existing logs can show that an automation ran but not always that the expected destination record actually arrived, arrived on time and was complete. We’ve built the verification layer. Now we’re working with real teams to understand how frequently these failures happen and when that added visibility becomes valuable.
What type of workflow would cross that threshold for you?