Interview objective: End with an explicit decision rule rather than a collection of interesting opinions.
Put this to: The buyer’s founder or product director, with counsel, engineering and editorial participants present.
Why it matters to buyers: Permission evidence, playable-state measurement and privacy obligations answer different questions. The sources reviewed support treating them separately rather than allowing a strong result in one area to stand in for another. (copyright.gov)
Draft framing — a good answer should cover:
- Approve: The defined scope has acceptable permissions, legal review, test results and commercial terms.
- Narrow: Launch only the titles, domains or environments for which the evidence is sufficient.
- Defer: Assign owners and dates to specific missing evidence.
- Reject: Identify the requirement the supplier cannot meet and why an exception is unacceptable.
Sharp follow-up: “Which evidence could change your decision, and which unresolved issue is a genuine stop condition?”
Buyer output: A one-page decision memo listing approved scope, exclusions, costs, dependencies, open questions and review triggers.
Ask the budget holder to explain whether the recommendation would change if referral fees or supplier introductions generated no income for the research desk. This is a proposed independence test, not an allegation about any named business.
Expert quote — awaiting interview: [Approved quotation and attribution.]