# 1. What would justify adding a supplier if we were forbidden to cite database size or a successful signing?


**Interview objective:** Establish an observable contribution to recruitment work before discussing subscription expansion.

**Put to:** Tyler Heaps and Sarah Rudd; ask the club’s budget owner to challenge the proposed value definition.

**Why it matters to buyers:** In her published Posit discussion, Dror describes making data understandable through corresponding video. That is a useful distinction for procurement: better presentation and access can be valuable without constituting a new underlying observation. ([opensource.posit.co](https://opensource.posit.co/resources/videos/2025-11-18_integrating-video-data-in-sports-analytics-arielle-dror-data-science-hangout/))

**A strong answer should cover:**

- A precise task, such as assessing whether a shortlisted midfielder receives effectively under pressure—not a general promise of better recruitment.
- What the existing stack and current staff can already establish.
- Whether the addition supplies a new observation, a new interpretation, faster verification or extra assessment capacity.
- The evidence required to accept the finding and the staff time needed to verify it.
- A case where the right recommendation would be to improve use of the incumbent rather than buy anything.

**Sharp follow-up:** If the supplier disappeared tomorrow, which supported conclusion would disappear with it—and which would merely take longer to produce?

**Request this artefact:** A baseline-versus-addition evidence ledger, with one row per recruitment question and separate columns for novelty, usability and verification effort.

Proposed expert interview; not yet conducted. No expert quotation is attributed.