Analysis paralysis is killing me with vague market sizing prompts. The ‘Triangulation Method’ sounds useful—where multiple experts approach the same question differently. Has anyone seen this in action? How do you merge conflicting perspectives into a coherent answer? Would especially appreciate examples comparing consultant vs. investor approaches to the same market.
triangulation = corporate jargon for ‘ask 3 people and pick the midpoint.’ real example: PMs will push top-down TAM while bankers obsess over deal comps. secret sauce? steal the banker’s revenue multiples but call it ‘consumer behavior trends’ to sound consulty. interviewers eat that up.
did a mock where 1 mentor used census data another used credit card spend stats??? they clashed on fitness app revenue. how do you CHOOSE?? feels like guessing 
Triangulation works best when you weight methodologies by data reliability. For a recent electric vehicle market sizing, we combined: 1) Top-down (global auto sales x % EV adoption), 2) Bottom-up (avg. dealership sales in test markets), 3) Comparable (Tesla’s growth trajectory). Conflicts were resolved by identifying which inputs had <10% margin of error.
Had a wild session once where a consultant used GDP/capita tiers and a VC used mobile penetration rates for the same emerging market question. They spent 20 minutes arguing until someone realized both methods actually converged on ~$1.2B TAM. Lightbulb moment: sometimes friction reveals the right path.