The full anatomy of a Scry report - six sections, four finding types, one fictional company
TL;DR: A Scry report is the structured output of Scry's customer intelligence layer — a single document built around one standing objective. It always has six sections: Executive Summary, Action Plan, Revenue Scenarios, Findings, Gaps & Unknowns, and Methodology. Every finding inside the Findings section is classified as one of four types — Corroboration, Contradiction, Explanation, or Extension. This blog walks through all six sections and all four finding types, using one fictional company and one real standing objective. Growth and product teams can use this as a template for what a finished report contains.
Introducing Fenwick — a fictional Series B project-management SaaS company, about 140 employees, that came to Scry with a standing objective: our best-volume acquisition channel has the worst 90-day retention of any channel we run — why, and what should we do about it? Paid social was Fenwick's top channel by every day-zero metric: lowest CAC, highest signup volume. It was also, by a wide margin, the channel with the worst 90-day retention.
Cross-source questions like Fenwick's are common because most companies' data already contains the answer — it's just never assembled in one place. MuleSoft's 2025 Connectivity Benchmark Report found that the average enterprise runs 897 applications, with only 29% integrated, and that 90% of IT leaders say data silos are creating active business challenges. Fenwick's answer didn't require new data. It required putting five exports that already existed into the same report — the same gap the Four-Check Fragmentation Audit is built to help a team find in their own stack before it shows up in a report like this one.
What sections are in a Scry synthesis report?
The Six-Section Scry Report is fixed in structure:
Executive Summary — the top-line conclusion, addressed to whoever owns the decision.
Action Plan — ranked next steps with named owners and success metrics.
Revenue Scenarios — directional models of acting versus not acting.
Findings — cross-source insights, each classified as one of four types: Corroboration, Contradiction, Explanation, or Extension.
Gaps & Unknowns — what the data couldn't answer, and what would close each gap.
Methodology — data sources, date range, and how findings were validated.
Here's what each of the Four Cross-Source Relationships mean:
Corroboration finding is two independent sources agreeing without either being built to check the other.
Contradiction finding is two sources disagreeing, where the disagreement itself is the finding.
Explanation finding is one source revealing why a pattern in another source occurs.
Extension finding is one source narrowing a broad pattern into something specific enough to act on.
What's in the Executive Summary, Action Plan, and Revenue Scenarios?
The Executive Summary is one paragraph, addressed to whoever owns the decision — in Fenwick's case, the VP of Growth. It states the finding plainly: paid social's onboarding funnel drops signups at a specific step before they ever reach the product's core value, and that drop is concentrated almost entirely in paid-social-acquired users. No jargon, no hedge. One paragraph, one conclusion, with one number attached: roughly $340K in annual recurring revenue sitting behind the fix.
The Action Plan turns the finding into ranked steps, for this example: rebuild the onboarding path paid-social users see (highest leverage), extend the guided tour to every acquisition source rather than just organic and referral (supporting fix), and re-measure 90-day retention for the next two paid-social cohorts against the change (validation). Each step named an owner and the one metric that would tell Fenwick whether it worked.
The Revenue Scenarios section modeled both directions: what 90-day retention parity between paid social and Fenwick's next-best channel is worth over four quarters, and what happens to paid social's unit economics if nothing changes while CAC keeps climbing and retention doesn't.
What is a Corroboration finding?
A Corroboration finding is when two sources that were never built to check each other land on the same conclusion anyway. For Fenwick, that was exit-survey verbatims and community-forum sentiment. Fenwick's exit survey, a handful of free-text fields collected by the customer success team, showed a recurring phrase from canceling users: some version of "too complicated to get the team set up." Separately, and for an unrelated purpose, Fenwick's community team had been tracking sentiment in the public user forum, and the most common complaint tagged there was "workspace setup confusing." Neither team was looking for the other's data. They converged on the same root cause anyway, and that convergence is what makes a Corroboration finding stronger than either signal alone.
The pattern holds outside Fenwick, too. Peloton's Q3 FY2025 shareholder letter reported Average Net Monthly Paid Connected Fitness Subscription Churn at 1.2%, while Net Promoter Score held above 70 across every Cardio hardware line and Member Support satisfaction climbed 20% year-over-year. One number came from billing records. The other came from a voluntary survey. Neither system was built to check the other. That's a Corroboration finding, whether it's showing up in a shareholder letter or a Scry report.
What is a Contradiction finding?
A Contradiction finding is when two sources disagree, and the disagreement itself is the finding. For Fenwick, the acquisition dashboard and the retention data told opposite stories about the same channel. By CAC and signup volume, paid social was Fenwick's best channel, full stop. By 90-day retention, it was the worst channel Fenwick ran. Neither number was wrong. They were answering different questions, and nobody at Fenwick had put them side by side before.
That's a more common gap than acquisition-side metrics make it look. Benchmarkit's 2025 SaaS Performance Metrics survey found a median New Customer CAC Ratio of $2.00, against $2.82 at the fourth quartile, a 41% efficiency gap between typical and worst-performing acquisition spend. That number lives in an acquisition dashboard. It never gets compared to a retention number sitting in a different tool. Fenwick's Contradiction finding was the argument those two numbers would have had, if anyone had put them in the same room.
What is an Explanation finding?
An Explanation finding is when one source reveals why a pattern in another source occurs. Fenwick's retention data showed a sharp day-7 drop-off cliff, concentrated almost entirely in paid-social signups. On its own, that's a pattern without a cause. The explanation came from onboarding logs: organic and referral signups saw a contextual product tour before reaching workspace setup; paid-social signups, routed through a different landing-page flow, skipped it entirely and hit "shared-workspace setup" with no guidance at all. The retention data showed what was happening. The product logs showed why.
Zendesk's CX Trends 2026 report found that 85% of CX leaders say customers will drop a brand over an unresolved issue, even on first contact. A retention cliff without an explanation isn't just a mystery. It's actively being fixed by the wrong team, working from the wrong hypothesis, for as long as the explanation stays missing.
What is an Extension finding?
An Extension finding is when one source takes a broad finding from another source and narrows it into something specific enough to act on. Fenwick already had a general belief that early activation predicts retention — most SaaS teams do. What the Extension finding added was specificity: within paid-social signups alone, users who completed shared-workspace setup within 24 hours retained at parity with organic and referral users. Users who took longer retained at less than half that rate. The broad finding didn't change. It got sharp enough to build an Action Plan step around.
Amplitude's 2025 Product Benchmark Report, drawn from more than 2,600 companies across industries, found that 69% of top day-7 activation performers were also top three-month retention performers. The subset that activates early isn't a small edge case in one vertical. It's most of the retention difference, wherever the product sits. Fenwick's paid-social cohort is one specific version of a pattern that shows up everywhere there's a gap between signing up and getting to value.
What's in the Gaps & Unknowns and Methodology sections, and how does Scry present its findings?
The Gaps & Unknowns section told Fenwick what the data couldn't answer: whether the 24-hour activation window held for enterprise-tier signups specifically (too small a sample in the period analyzed), and whether the community-forum sentiment was representative of the full canceled-user population or skewed toward the vocal minority who post publicly. Both gaps came with a note on what data would close them.
The Methodology section documented what went into the analysis: the exports Fenwick sent (product analytics, CRM, support tickets, community forum exports, exit-survey responses), the date range covered, and how each finding was validated across sources before it made the report.
Every Scry report, Fenwick's included, goes through human review before delivery. The model surfaces candidate findings; a person checks them against context the data alone can't carry, cuts what doesn't hold up, and sharpens what does before it gets delivered. Findings like these don't wait for someone to ask the right question — that's the shift from reactive dashboards to the proactive layer above them, the Two Modes of Intelligence Scry runs on. Findings arrive wherever the team already works, organized and classified, ready to act on without translation.
Fenwick isn't a client. It's a synthetic proxy to show what a full report looks like end to end, from the synthesis layer down to the Methodology section. If your team has a standing objective like Fenwick's — a metric that looks great in one tool and terrible in another, and nobody's put them side by side — that's exactly the kind of question Scry is built to answer.
If any of this has resonated of piqued your interest, email hello@monadux.com or DM me on LinkedIn, tell me the cross-source question your team has been sitting on, and let's get started.
— Steven Rencher, Founder of Monadux
FAQ
What does a Scry report contain?
A Scry report contains six sections: Executive Summary, Action Plan, Revenue Scenarios, Findings, Gaps & Unknowns, and Methodology. Every finding inside the Findings section is classified as one of four types — Corroboration, Contradiction, Explanation, or Extension — so a reader knows exactly what kind of evidence sits behind each conclusion.
What sections are in a Scry synthesis report?
A Scry synthesis report has six sections: Executive Summary (the top-line conclusion), Action Plan (ranked next steps with owners), Revenue Scenarios (models of acting versus not), Findings (classification of cross-source insights), Gaps & Unknowns (what the data couldn't answer), and Methodology (sources and validation).
What is a Contradiction finding?
A Contradiction finding is when two sources disagree, and the disagreement itself is the finding. One metric might show a channel performing best by acquisition volume while another shows the same channel performing worst by retention. Neither number is wrong — nobody had compared them before.
What is an Explanation finding?
An Explanation finding is when one data source reveals why a pattern in another source occurs. A retention dashboard might show a drop-off cliff without a cause; product logs can show the exact onboarding step where users disengage, turning an unexplained pattern into a specific, fixable cause.
What is a Corroboration finding?
A Corroboration finding is when two independent sources, never built to check each other, reach the same conclusion anyway. Exit-survey comments and community-forum sentiment agreeing on the same root cause is one example — the convergence itself is what makes the finding stronger than either source alone.
What is an Extension finding?
An Extension finding takes a broad, already-known pattern and narrows it into something specific enough to act on. "Early activation predicts retention" is a broad finding; "users who finish setup within 24 hours retain at double the rate of those who don't" is the Extension that makes it actionable.
How does Scry present its findings?
Scry presents findings inside a structured report delivered to wherever a team already works — Slack, email, a document, etc. Each finding is classified as Corroboration, Contradiction, Explanation, or Extension, reviewed by a person before delivery, and tied to a specific Action Plan step and owner.