Comparison tables mix incompatible packages. The useful response is a targeted correction with an observable acceptance check. That keeps the repair tied to the problem instead of turning it into an open-ended redesign.
Find the likely cause
Entry plans and enterprise services are compared directly.
Treat this as an explanation to verify against the actual work. Look at the input, the relevant decision, and the final result together. If the evidence does not support this diagnosis, investigate the mismatch before applying a convenient but unrelated fix.
Make the targeted correction
Normalize scope, billing period, and included services.
Competitor research should clarify available alternatives and buyer trade-offs without pretending to know a rival's private performance.
Check that the repair worked
Make exclusions visible beside each comparison.
Repeat the check on the final version that the reader or customer will encounter. An approved draft, a preview, and a published result can differ; the acceptance decision should concern the version people actually use.
Prevent the next related failure
A separate issue to watch for is this: a competitor summary confuses claims with proof. Label a rival's statements as claims and keep independent observations separate.
Monitor the useful outcome
Track how many positioning decisions rely on verified observations rather than unsupported assumptions.
Keep a short record of the original symptom, the evidence behind the diagnosis, and the result of the acceptance check. That record makes the solution reusable when the same condition appears again, without assuming that every superficially similar problem has the same cause.